What character concepts can you still not play in 5e without homebrew?

[Rfkannen]

So 5e doesn't have that many options yet, but they manage to cover a fair amount of different character fantasies. I'm not speaking about mechanical niches but concept, for example if you want to play a person who is a spellsword, we still don't have a half arcane caster, but we do have the eldritch knight who covers the concept of a spellsword, even if mechanically it isn't much of a caster.

What characters concepts can't be played at All? I'm not talking it being implemented poorly or unbalnced, what types of characters does 5e just not represent at all yet?

[Saiga]

A balanced Lycanthrope.

[Rfkannen]

A balanced Lycanthrope.

Normally i would say that is a mechanical niche, since we do have unbalanced lycanthropes, but considering as far as I can tell absolutely no dm would allow a player to use it that's a good point!

[Zorku]

Yeah. there are mentions of several character possibilities in the core books, like your werewolves, but with blatantly terrible functionality.

I'm kind of sketchy on the UA that have touched on more modern settings; is there any wotc material for guns (that's not so bad nobody would ever use it)?

[ghost_warlock]

Normally i would say that is a mechanical niche, since we do have unbalanced lycanthropes, but considering as far as I can tell absolutely no dm would allow a player to use it that's a good point!

I allowed a player character werewolf a couple years ago. It was extremely strong, but I was running a high power campaign where enemy casters and silver/magic weapons were somewhat common so it was okay for the most part.

Until, that is, they decided to start trying to infect NPCs to recruit loyal minions. :smallsigh:

[Sariel Vailo]

I guess a vampire as a race. Because any race can be a vampire how would one handle that than.i found a samurai i like it is homebrew however. Or a princess for some kind of bard.

[Shades of Gray]

I guess a vampire as a race. Because any race can be a vampire how would one handle that than.i found a samurai i like it is homebrew however. Or a princess for some kind of bard.

I believe vampires are a playable race in planeshift: Zendikar

[Sariel Vailo]

I believe vampires are a playable race in planeshift: Zendikar

They are in planeshift but i wanted to play one in al.

[Ninja-Radish]

Any of my favorite classes from 4E: Ardent, Avenger, Battlemind, Invoker, Warden, Warlord. Just can't be re-created in 5E.

[Sariel Vailo]

Ive been ready to see those they looked fun i have the 4e books and never played

[Talionis]

Thrower is still far behind Archery in power level and fun/playability (shorter range is to be expected) and please don't tell me you can't throw knives faster than you can Knock and fire arrows.

Chameleon would be a neat character from 3.5 that isn't easy to do. I guess a Bard sorta is like that.

Spellthief was turned from a fun class too a poor capstone.

I'd love to see Alchemist implemented well. Not happy with the first draft in UA and I hope we get more variety to a pseudoscientific class.

[xroads]

A strong summoner/conjuror? Not even the druid gets a conjure ally spells until 5th level. And this, as well as all of the conjure ally spells are concentration based.

At high levels, wizards of the school of conjuring can be pretty cool summoners. But it sure takes awhile for them to get there.

Another thing I miss are the shamans from 4e. The one's that can conjure a spirit like companion to tear up the enemy. Though I suppose beastmaster rangers can be refluffed to take this role.

[Naanomi]

There are a lot of 'mechanical' concepts that can't be realized; but from a fluff angle the existing material does a great job covering a lot of territory.

I think the distinction is meaningful to the conversation... when I say I can't play a 'thrower', that is a mechanical issue: I can definetly make a character that throws weapons, it just isn't very good... when I say I can't play a time-traveling cyborg from the future, that is a (probably good) absence of existing fluff to cover that concept

[JNAProductions]

Dragonfire Adept.

[alchahest]

Any of my favorite classes from 4E: Ardent, Avenger, Battlemind, Invoker, Warden, Warlord. Just can't be re-created in 5E.

Ardent and Warden are my favorites from 4e.

An argument could be made that Vengeance Paladins fulfill the Avenger role - loads of extra movement and sticking to your target, and the ability to blast down their HP with smites.

I'd LOVE to see a strength-based punch guy.

[Mortis_Elrod]

A few select Prcs from 3.0/3.5, Walker in the Waste, That anti-druid druid prc (all about destroying the wilderness), Not sure if it can be done well, but a touch spell based melee combatant, maybe duskblade like or better yet a melee dread necromancer. A proper witch class, focused on debuffs, familars, but not damage. Binder class (one vestige does not make you a binder, can't refluff that out of warlock), Cantrip only mage (more than one cantrip) and no higher level spells. Technically you can just grab warlock and tome pact and a couple sorcerer levels then straight paladin using you smites to make sure you never have anything other than cantrips to cast but i dont think this counts (unless it does?).




Alot of things can be refluffed though (i hate that option but its still there),

[Finlam]

Still can't play a Blue Mage in D&D yet =/
My expectations are way out of left field here.

[MrFahrenheit]

I created a thread that touched on this a while back...I'm not sure there's anything that truly needs to be added on the player side, not after Volo's, and almost definitely not after Xanathar's comes out.

I would like to see more mid-high CR enemies not intended to be bosses, though. But that's from a DM perspective.

[Pex]

Archer Paladin

[Mortis_Elrod]

Archer Paladin

Yes. pls. Let me make ranged Smites. Let my Arrows of Justice fly true like beams of sunlight, destroying the darkness where ever they land.

[EvilAnagram]

Any of my favorite classes from 4E: Ardent, Avenger, Battlemind, Invoker, Warden, Warlord. Just can't be re-created in 5E.

We're talking fluff, not mechanics. Avenger=Vengeance Paladin, Invoker=Light/Arcana Cleric, Warden=Ancients Paladin, Warlord=Battle Master/Banneret.

[MrFahrenheit]

Archer Paladin

I can see smiting from range as a permanent no-no, since bows/xbows are candidates for sneak attack as well, without the danger a melee build sees from being on the front line. Arcane trickster 12/archer paladin 6 (I'm assuming you'd have to get an oath to do the archery smite)/full caster 2 would be terrifying: 6d6 sneak attack + 5d8 smite (at least for a few turns) + 1d10 (hvy xbow) + 5 (dex mod) + 10 (sharpshooter). Oh you missed? Ok well then you get to try it again.

With a similar build, but intended for melee, you could get the above, but without the +10 damage (since the only sharpshooter equivalent, GWM, doesn't apply to any finesse weapons), and as stated before, you're right up in front.

EDIT: That being said, a totem option for barbs that permits rage damage on thrown weaponry could be very thematic.

[Kryx]

Any of my favorite classes from 4E: Ardent, Avenger, Battlemind, Invoker, Warden, Warlord. Just can't be re-created in 5E.
Avenger: Oath of Vengeance Paladin. If you want it without the armor then use unarmored defense instead of heavy armor prof. It's practically identical
Invoker: Light Cleric comes pretty close
Warden: Oath of the Ancients Paladin
Warlord: BM Fighter or Purple Dragon Knight

Ardent and Battlemind need psionics.

[Kite474]

Thankfully alot of fluff stuff you can do for the most part. Unfortunately 90% of them are utter ****e

[Rhedyn]

Someone who picks what they summon instead throwing random monsters on a battlefield.

[Hrugner]

Mechanical concepts or RP concepts? Here's my list to the best of my knowledge, if non-homebrew options exist for these I'd love to see them.

RP concepts:
low techers, tribals: weapons never degrade, everyone is proficient with fairly sophisticated weaponry.
illiterates: Everyone gets common as a starting language.
cult leader warlock: a warlock whose power comes from the faith and magic of his followers rather than a higher power.
reincarnated: you can be reincarnated, but there's no support for a backstory that involves having been.

Mechanical concepts:
light thrown weapon master
hulking hurler type thrown weapon master
mirror mimic
magical backstabber
biter
small sized large weapon master

[Naanomi]

biter
Lizardman openhand monk; including an instant-death bite!

[Vaz]

I can see smiting from range as a permanent no-no, since bows/xbows are candidates for sneak attack as well, without the danger a melee build sees from being on the front line. Arcane trickster 12/archer paladin 6 (I'm assuming you'd have to get an oath to do the archery smite)/full caster 2 would be terrifying: 6d6 sneak attack + 5d8 smite (at least for a few turns) + 1d10 (hvy xbow) + 5 (dex mod) + 10 (sharpshooter). Oh you missed? Ok well then you get to try it again.

Warlock/Arcane Trickster tho? Gets higher level spells on a short rest? Deals 6d8+like 5d6.

Use while hidden, and there's advantage to try and crit with, especially if Hexblade and within 30ft to curse with.

[smcmike]

This may sound dumb, but the fictional archetype that D&D is truly terrible at is the common man. In order for the game to be fun as a game, every character needs to be able to do a bunch of cool stuff, and there isn't much room for just sort of bumbling through a plot, which is what many, many, many fictional protagonists do. There isn't any good way to resolve this that I can think of, since the whole point of the common man archetype is that he isn't particularly powerful. I mean, I guess Frodo and Sam might have been level one rogues in a party full of level 5+ characters, but that isn't much fun.

[NecroDancer]

I want to play an artificer however the UA isn't great and gives no actual bonus to making magic items. The main problem is that magic item crafting is a variant rule in 5e.

I'm also hoping for a warlord to become an actual class/archetype (the battlemaster is a great start but needs to be expanded on).

A bloodrager (magical barbarian who casts spells via raging and gets magical mutations) would also be cool and easy to make into an archetype.

[Friv]

This may sound dumb, but the fictional archetype that D&D is truly terrible at is the common man. In order for the game to be fun as a game, every character needs to be able to do a bunch of cool stuff, and there isn't much room for just sort of bumbling through a plot, which is what many, many, many fictional protagonists do. There isn't any good way to resolve this that I can think of, since the whole point of the common man archetype is that he isn't particularly powerful. I mean, I guess Frodo and Sam might have been level one rogues in a party full of level 5+ characters, but that isn't much fun.

You can do a decent "common man" if you deploy a bit of fluff, but it takes some work.

Open with about two levels of rogue. Your Expertise skills can be ones that aren't traditional roguish things - Diplomacy and Artisan's Tools, say. You are a very friendly farmer with a knack for being in the right place at the right time (that Sneak Attack represents your general good luck).

Then you branch into five levels of Fighter, using the defensive combat talent for bonus AC. Take Commander's Strike, Rally, and Parry, and you're the guy who supports the real heroes and doesn't get hit much. Your Battlemaster skills aren't reflecting a lifetime of martial training, here, they reflect being the resilient everyman.

Then you just sort of hop back and forth between rogue and fighter, focusing on defensive and charismatic powers. You can hold your own in a fight, but mostly you annoy enemies and stay out of their way, while narratively being overshadowed by all the magic users. At high enough levels it's going to break down, of course, but that's true of a lot of low-level archetypes. You can keep this going well into the teens, I think.

[Hooligan]

A bloodrager (magical barbarian who casts spells via raging and gets magical mutations) would also be cool and easy to make into an archetype.

Please....no rage mages

[JackPhoenix]

It's not homebrew if all you're doing is changing the fluff


low techers, tribals: weapons never degrade, everyone is proficient with fairly sophisticated weaponry.
illiterates: Everyone gets common as a starting language.

Fluff. It doesn't matter if anyone is proficient with greatswords if greatswords doesn't exist in the world. Or if they just decide to not use them because "they are not proficient".
Same with language


cult leader warlock: a warlock whose power comes from the faith and magic of his followers rather than a higher power.

I guess, but why don't just refluff cleric or warlock?


reincarnated: you can be reincarnated, but there's no support for a backstory that involves having been.

Custom backstory. Done. There are rules for that.


light thrown weapon master
hulking hurler type thrown weapon master

Yes, throwing weapons are terrible in 5e. However, the first one is Dex character throwing finesse weapons, the other is Str character throwing non-finesse weapons


mirror mimic

What?


magical backstabber

Arcane Trickster. Sneak attack + spells


biter

Any lizardfolk. Longtooth shifter. Any monk.


small sized large weapon master

Barbarian. Reckless attack. Done. Or other ways to negate the disadvantage


This may sound dumb, but the fictional archetype that D&D is truly terrible at is the common man. In order for the game to be fun as a game, every character needs to be able to do a bunch of cool stuff, and there isn't much room for just sort of bumbling through a plot, which is what many, many, many fictional protagonists do. There isn't any good way to resolve this that I can think of, since the whole point of the common man archetype is that he isn't particularly powerful. I mean, I guess Frodo and Sam might have been level one rogues in a party full of level 5+ characters, but that isn't much fun.

That's not the problem of D&D, that's the problem of common man stopping being a common man if he does "cool" stuff. If Bob the commoner manages to slay a dragon, he's no longer Bob the commoner, he's Bob the dragonslayer. Even if Jimmy Olsen manages to do something heroic from time to time, he's nowhere near the level of Superman. Still, you can run Joe Wood style campaign in D&D just fine.


snip

I would suggest a level of barbarian for Unarmored Defense on top of that. Still, while the character is "commoner" compared to optimalized heroes, he's way above actual commoners.

[Ninja-Radish]

We're talking fluff, not mechanics. Avenger=Vengeance Paladin, Invoker=Light/Arcana Cleric, Warden=Ancients Paladin, Warlord=Battle Master/Banneret.

If you're talking fluff then you can change anything into anything, it doesn't matter. Mechanically none of those classes can be replicated in 5E though.

[Ninja-Radish]

Avenger: Oath of Vengeance Paladin. If you want it without the armor then use unarmored defense instead of heavy armor prof. It's practically identical
Invoker: Light Cleric comes pretty close
Warden: Oath of the Ancients Paladin
Warlord: BM Fighter or Purple Dragon Knight

Ardent and Battlemind need psionics.

I strongly disagree that the mechanics of any of those classes you mentioned comes close. The only one that's mechanically close is Vengeance Pally/Avenger.

However, if you're only talking about fluff then maybe. I'm not a fluff guy, I could care less about that. I'm all about mechanics personally.

[Kryx]

If you're talking fluff then you can change anything into anything, it doesn't matter. Mechanically none of those classes can be replicated in 5E though.
And if we're talking mechanics neither can the 4e Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, etc, etc, etc.

It's not the same game so the mechanics aren't identical, but those examples are very very similar in theme and mechanics to their 4e counterparts.

[Hrugner]

Lizardman openhand monk; including an instant-death bite!

The bite is considered a monk weapon? Cool, thanks for the tip.


It's not homebrew if all you're doing is changing the fluff
1. Fluff. It doesn't matter if anyone is proficient with greatswords if greatswords doesn't exist in the world. Or if they just decide to not use them because "they are not proficient".
Same with language
2. I guess, but why don't just refluff cleric or warlock?
3. Custom backstory. Done. There are rules for that.
4. What?
5. Arcane Trickster. Sneak attack + spells
6. Barbarian. Reckless attack. Done. Or other ways to negate the disadvantage


1. It does matter. You could RP that your character simply doesn't use better weapons, but it's at a mechanical disadvantage to do so. This choice isn't supported by the rules.
2. Refluff which domain or patron exactly? The closest you get is warlock, but their patrons are very thematically extra planar even in their crunch. Thus homebrew.
3. Yes, custom backstory is in the rules. The rules saying that homebrew is okay don't make it not homebrew.
4. a mirror mimic is someone whose powers depend on what he is facing or who he is with.
5. They can't sneak attack with the spell themselves except for the two spells that are also weapon attacks. If you want someone who makes touch spell assassinations you're out of luck.

If we're refluffing things dramatically, then I'd refluff a warlock as my dagger thrower and just call eldritch blasts "daggers".


I should also add the multi buff party support character and the summoner type that is weak on their own but has a big creature that does their fighting for them.

[EvilAnagram]

And if we're talking mechanics neither can the 4e Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, etc, etc, etc.

It's not the same game so the mechanics aren't identical, but those examples are very very similar in theme and mechanics to their 4e counterparts.
I've never said this before, but Kryx is absolutely right.

The classes are mechanically different from what they used to be because it's a different game. Those pairings share thematic ties to the old classes, despite the mechanical changes of the esitions.

[JackPhoenix]

1. It does matter. You could RP that your character simply doesn't use better weapons, but it's at a mechanical disadvantage to do so. This choice isn't supported by the rules.

But that's the point of better weapons. If they don't exist, you don't have a problem, if they do exist, why does your low-tech guy tries to use worse things instead of looting better equipment as anyone in the real history did?


2. Refluff which domain or patron exactly? The closest you get is warlock, but their patrons are very thematically extra planar even in their crunch. Thus homebrew.

Depends what do you expect to get from the worshipers. "kill stuff with fire, resist damage and get buffed from killing things isn't exactly thematically extraplanar. Neither is "mental powers, ... well, that's pretty much all GoO lock gets".


3. Yes, custom backstory is in the rules. The rules saying that homebrew is okay don't make it not homebrew.

Again, what do you expect to get from "I used to be an elf, now I'm dwarf"? Skills? Choosing proficiencies for custom background isn't homebrew. Background feature? I'm not sure what would the impact be. Everything else is just character personality


4. a mirror mimic is someone whose powers depend on what he is facing or who he is with.

Allright. I don't remember anything like that in any edition of D&D I've played. Or in any (non-video) game, for that matter.


5. They can't sneak attack with the spell themselves except for the two spells that are also weapon attacks. If you want someone who makes touch spell assassinations you're out of luck.

Fair enough, but the reason for that is obvious: spellcasters don't need to be more powerful than they already are. Or just use various means to get the most possible damage from the touch spell, you don't need sneak attack for that.


I should also add the multi buff party support character

Lore Bard/Paladin with proper spell selection, Bardic Inspiration, aura and perhaps Inspiring Leader. Perhaps some magic items that help with concentration (most spellcasting magic items require the user to keep concentration, in theory, familiar using the item should work). The reason why it doesn't exist and never should otherwise should be obvious.


summoner type that is weak on their own but has a big creature that does their fighting for them.

I can agree with that, but there IS a way to achieve that with some houserules (not really homebrew, but not refluffing either): take whatever class the "big creature" should be, get Find Familiar, try to get a commoner as familiar. The "familiar" is the master, the barbarian (or whatever) is his big, killy pet. Or ask to run 2 characters: I've had the concept of a spellcaster with "living statue" (Warforged fighter) bodyguard/pet. The spellcaster did the talking, the fighter did the smashing.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I've never said this before, but Kryx is absolutely right.

The classes are mechanically different from what they used to be because it's a different game. Those pairings share thematic ties to the old classes, despite the mechanical changes of the esitions.
This is what I hate about most homebrew classes. They're (mostly) completely unnecessary and fill no real gaps. With the soul serious exception of a functional arcane half-caster, virtually every concept can fit into the available classes without much finagling. The holdouts were artificer and psionics, and they're in more or less playable form right now, regardless of if you like them or not. Not liking the mechanics of a class is a completely different problem.

I like homebrewed subclasses a lot more. They're supposed to be there for fine-tuning your concept to more precisely match what you want, and I'm deeply thirsty for more of them.

[Naanomi]

The bite is considered a monk weapon? Cool, thanks for the tip.
Not a monk weapon, but it is an unarmed Attack

[smcmike]

This is what I hate about most homebrew classes. They're (mostly) completely unnecessary and fill no real gaps. With the soul serious exception of a functional arcane half-caster, virtually every concept can fit into the available classes without much finagling.

This depends on how wide you cast your net.

5e does a good job representing the traditional D&D archetypes and related fiction. There is plenty of stuff it doesn't do, though. Some stuff is simply incompatible with the system, but other things might be fun additions.

[Easy_Lee]

Thief acrobat with a quarterstaff. Shadow Monk with a staff is the closest thing, but you can't SA with a quarterstaff even if you dip monk to use it with Dex.

[Waterdeep Merch]

This depends on how wide you cast your net.

5e does a good job representing the traditional D&D archetypes and related fiction. There is plenty of stuff it doesn't do, though. Some stuff is simply incompatible with the system, but other things might be fun additions.
If you put a gun to my head, I'd have to admit that the system could use more half-X classes, and not only the half-caster forms. Not necessarily because you can't do it already via multiclassing, but because you could marry the concepts better as a single balanced class and offer interesting permutations that don't require some weird road map when leveling up that will inevitably hand you dead levels or irritatingly slow progression. I'd love to see more homebrew in that vein instead of 'this class uses magic a little differently!' another 20 times.

[Knaight]

Putting aside things that are obviously out of genre (fighter pilot, space marine, detective) 5e doesn't have meaningful coverage for noncombatants, alchemists, or military leaders.


If you're talking fluff then you can change anything into anything, it doesn't matter. Mechanically none of those classes can be replicated in 5E though.
Different mechanics are used for different conceptual roles in a setting for a reason - because they fit some things better than others. Not all mechanics work for all fluff, and it really shows when people try to stretch it too far. For instance, take the Fighter mechanics, and try to use it to represent a WWII warplane. Watch how regardless of how much refluffing you do the result is still really weird.

[8wGremlin]

D&D 3.5 Binder or a Summoner - Who actually summons specific creatures.

[Pex]

This may sound dumb, but the fictional archetype that D&D is truly terrible at is the common man. In order for the game to be fun as a game, every character needs to be able to do a bunch of cool stuff, and there isn't much room for just sort of bumbling through a plot, which is what many, many, many fictional protagonists do. There isn't any good way to resolve this that I can think of, since the whole point of the common man archetype is that he isn't particularly powerful. I mean, I guess Frodo and Sam might have been level one rogues in a party full of level 5+ characters, but that isn't much fun.

One could say this is where the Champion would fit. He has some tricks, but they aren't fancy. To be a Common Man doesn't have to mean incompetent.

[Hrugner]

But that's the point of better weapons. If they don't exist, you don't have a problem, if they do exist, why does your low-tech guy tries to use worse things instead of looting better equipment as anyone in the real history did?

Depends what do you expect to get from the worshipers. "kill stuff with fire, resist damage and get buffed from killing things isn't exactly thematically extraplanar. Neither is "mental powers, ... well, that's pretty much all GoO lock gets".

Again, what do you expect to get from "I used to be an elf, now I'm dwarf"? Skills? Choosing proficiencies for custom background isn't homebrew. Background feature? I'm not sure what would the impact be. Everything else is just character personality

Allright. I don't remember anything like that in any edition of D&D I've played. Or in any (non-video) game, for that matter.

Fair enough, but the reason for that is obvious: spellcasters don't need to be more powerful than they already are. Or just use various means to get the most possible damage from the touch spell, you don't need sneak attack for that.

Lore Bard/Paladin with proper spell selection, Bardic Inspiration, aura and perhaps Inspiring Leader. Perhaps some magic items that help with concentration (most spellcasting magic items require the user to keep concentration, in theory, familiar using the item should work). The reason why it doesn't exist and never should otherwise should be obvious.

I can agree with that, but there IS a way to achieve that with some houserules (not really homebrew, but not refluffing either): take whatever class the "big creature" should be, get Find Familiar, try to get a commoner as familiar. The "familiar" is the master, the barbarian (or whatever) is his big, killy pet. Or ask to run 2 characters: I've had the concept of a spellcaster with "living statue" (Warforged fighter) bodyguard/pet. The spellcaster did the talking, the fighter did the smashing.

With the low tech person you run into the problem that they really shouldn't be any more proficient with advanced weapons than a commoner as they have no experience, but if they're a warrior type they'd be best using the best weapon they're proficient with. The best option is to stick with monk I think, but the abilities there don't match the typical savage. It's probably workable, but I'd prefer a true savage barbarian.

For reincarnation I don't have any specific expectations. If I were to make the background it'd be something like the outlander background feature but for knowledge checks.

Mirror mimics aren't something that pops up in D&D, you can get fairly close but there's usually a piece or two missing. It's just a different sort of magic that's not done in D&D.

The interest in the arcane backstabber isn't in making casters better, it's just making a rogue that uses magic primarily rather than as a supplement. It also fills a melee arcane spot with something other than the standard gish type.

Inspiration's temporary and limited nature makes it pretty lackluster as a party buff thing. I wouldn't bother with it. Paladin is a good place to start, but then you aren't really a rear support character since nothing else works on the paladin outside of really short range. You also never get the better buffs and are still limited in concentration. Maybe a glamour bard ancients paladin sorcerer? I'm coming around on this one.

[HidesHisEyes]

This may sound dumb, but the fictional archetype that D&D is truly terrible at is the common man. In order for the game to be fun as a game, every character needs to be able to do a bunch of cool stuff, and there isn't much room for just sort of bumbling through a plot, which is what many, many, many fictional protagonists do. There isn't any good way to resolve this that I can think of, since the whole point of the common man archetype is that he isn't particularly powerful. I mean, I guess Frodo and Sam might have been level one rogues in a party full of level 5+ characters, but that isn't much fun.

D&D is a power fantasy game, player characters are not ordinary people. It can't do everything. I want to convince someone to play a system intended for low fantasy, low magic and low power levels with me, but I worry people would lose interest quickly if they can't have their smites and level 6+ spells. Not that I'm against the power fantasy play style, I love it, just I also really feeling like the underdog as opposed to a superhero.

[Naanomi]

Thief acrobat with a quarterstaff. Shadow Monk with a staff is the closest thing, but you can't SA with a quarterstaff even if you dip monk to use it with Dex.
While I get that you can't do it mechanically; nothing about the *concept* of thief/acrobat screams a need for sneak attack to me

[HidesHisEyes]

A sort of counter-question for the OP (and anyone else): do we NEED D&D to be able to do absolutely any concept we can dream up? I know you're not asking for obviously setting/genre-breaking things like space robots, but the game is what it is and at some point you sort of have to accept that it determines its own genre and setting, don't you? I've been harping on this in other threads lately so I apologise, but there are games out there with character creation systems that are designed to let you create your own character concept from scratch and they don't involve picking a class (or they have like three or four very generic classes). But D&D gives you a list of concepts and says "pick one". That's just the way the game works. I dunno, I sometimes get a sort of fatigue at the whole thing of multi-classing three different classes in a weird balancing act to try and get the maximum power while realising some obscure concept. Not accusing anyone of bad wrong fun or anything, just an idea for an alternative perspective.

I do agree that a half arcane caster class would be nice. I've seen a decent homebrew Spellsword class actually, just can't remember where.

[Hooligan]

A sort of counter-question for the OP (and anyone else): do we NEED D&D to be able to do absolutely any concept we can dream up? I know you're not asking for obviously setting/genre-breaking things like space robots, but the game is what it is and at some point you sort of have to accept that it determines its own genre and setting, don't you? I've been harping on this in other threads lately so I apologise, but there are games out there with character creation systems that are designed to let you create your own character concept from scratch and they don't involve picking a class (or they have like three or four very generic classes). But D&D gives you a list of concepts and says "pick one". That's just the way the game works. I dunno, I sometimes get a sort of fatigue at the whole thing of multi-classing three different classes in a weird balancing act to try and get the maximum power while realising some obscure concept. Not accusing anyone of bad wrong fun or anything, just an idea for an alternative perspective.

I do agree that a half arcane caster class would be nice. I've seen a decent homebrew Spellsword class actually, just can't remember where.

Absolutely not. I want to eat at the restaurant with 5-10 things on the menu than the place with a novella of options. I'm pretty sure the first place is going to pull all of those 10 things off pretty well.

Personally I've no interest in playing lycanthropes, barbarianwizards, vampires, and so on and so forth.

[NecroDancer]

Actually a class focused on drawing out your character's inner monster would be cool. Each level you get more and more animal abilities. It would probably be a mix of barbarian and monk though.

Actually now that I think about it I would love a barbarian archetype that gives you natural weapons like claws and such but that would probably be stepping on the monk's toes mechanically speaking. I suppose I could always refluff the monk to be more "animalistic".

I'm still want my "rage mage" archetype though.

[Hooligan]

Actually a class focused on drawing out your character's inner monster would be cool. Each level you get more and more animal abilities. It would probably be a mix of barbarian and monk though.

Actually now that I think about it I would love a barbarian archetype that gives you natural weapons like claws and such but that would probably be stepping on the monk's toes mechanically speaking. I suppose I could always refluff the monk to be more "animalistic".

I'm still want my "rage mage" archetype though.

BarBearian so to speak?

[HidesHisEyes]

Absolutely not. I want to eat at the restaurant with 5-10 things on the menu than the place with a novella of options. I'm pretty sure the first place is going to pull all of those 10 things off pretty well.

Personally I've no interest in playing lycanthropes, barbarianwizards, vampires, and so on and so forth.

Glad I'm not totally alone!

I do think new and alternative sub-classes would be welcome though.

[smcmike]

While I agree that the core game should have a limited menu, I like the idea of high quality third party (or even in-house) additions, with the expectation that core is still the default.

I also really like the idea of a good unarmed. barbarian subclass, or a monk subclass using claws & stuff.

[alchahest]

Absolutely not. I want to eat at the restaurant with 5-10 things on the menu than the place with a novella of options. I'm pretty sure the first place is going to pull all of those 10 things off pretty well.

Personally I've no interest in playing lycanthropes, barbarianwizards, vampires, and so on and so forth.

well the nice thing is you don't have to, even if they come up with books to allow it.

[mr-mercer]

There are two big things I'm really missing, both relevant to unarmed combat: an unarmed combatant who focuses on strength rather than dexterity, and an unarmed combatant who doesn't use magic. I'm perfectly comfortable with the Charles Atlas Superpower stuff (gaining inhuman physical prowess through intense training and all that good stuff) but I draw the line at things like being able to turn invisible: just let me be a super good martial artist or brawler.

For the latter, me and a friend spent some time figuring out how to refluff an open hand monk to be nonmagical last night (for example, justifying Tranquility as being in a heightened state of awareness where one can dodge and deflect blows with ease, kind of like an improved form of Evasion). It would definitely have to be run by whatever DM I wanted to use the character with beforehand (though I can't imagine many of them refusing the concept) but we did manage to figure out pretty much everything except for the aformentioned invisibility.

[HidesHisEyes]

There are two big things I'm really missing, both relevant to unarmed combat: an unarmed combatant who focuses on strength rather than dexterity, and an unarmed combatant who doesn't use magic. I'm perfectly comfortable with the Charles Atlas Superpower stuff (gaining inhuman physical prowess through intense training and all that good stuff) but I draw the line at things like being able to turn invisible: just let me be a super good martial artist or brawler.

For the latter, me and a friend spent some time figuring out how to refluff an open hand monk to be nonmagical last night (for example, justifying Tranquility as being in a heightened state of awareness where one can dodge and deflect blows with ease, kind of like an improved form of Evasion). It would definitely have to be run by whatever DM I wanted to use the character with beforehand (though I can't imagine many of them refusing the concept) but we did manage to figure out pretty much everything except for the aformentioned invisibility.

Have a gander at this: http://spilledale.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/5e-fighter-archetypethe-fist-fighter.html?m=1

[HidesHisEyes]

well the nice thing is you don't have to, even if they come up with books to allow it.

Well, yes and no. I don't have to play anything I don't want to play, but in order to play at all I have to find people who want to play the same game as me. Or to play with the same... mindset? I guess. If I'm viewing D&D as "pick a character concept and go on adventures" and everyone I meet is viewing it as "awesome unique character building and multiclass stat-maxing workshop deluxe" then their fun affects my fun adversely. Take a pre-emptive chill pill if necessary, I reiterate I'm not telling anyone how to enjoy their RPGs. Also, the problem is nowhere near as bad as I'm making it sound. It's just a little whisper in my ear occasionally when I glance at the PHB contents page and am reminded that multiclassing is under "optional rules", going "it doesn't have to be like this, HidesHisEyes, it could all be so much simpler..."

I think I need some sleep.

[HidesHisEyes]

BarBearian so to speak?

As it happens a friend of mine has recently made a forest gnome Druid/barbarian which is pretty much that. Wildshape plus rage = barbearian (he even spelled it that way).

[Vaz]

Personally I've no interest in playing lycanthropes, barbarianwizards, vampires, and so on and so forth.
I'm not interested in Monks, Sorcerers or Rangers. Lets get them removed from the PHB.

[Potato_Priest]

I'd like a dedicated shapeshifter and a dedicated pet class. I'd like to play a character who is totally unremarkable in his normal form, but has an awesome pet or can turn into all kinds of crazy ****.

The druid has some shapeshifting, but they've got other stuff too (they're a full caster, for darkness' sake) , so their shapeshifting isn't as interesting, customizable, or cool as it could be.

The ranger can have a pet, but they've got other stuff too (1/2 casting, a decent martial framework, and some nature based features) so their pet can't be nearly as interesting, customizable, or cool as it could be.

Both the druid and the ranger are the best at shapeshifting and pets respectively at the moment, so there's not really any multiclassing that would help, but neither one is as good at it as a dedicated class could be.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I've always wanted to play a Claw based savage fighter with an elemental connection. Like a Elemental Savage. Would be a nice Monk or barbarian Subclass. Or better yet, just a straight up monster/savage/feral barbarian multiclassed with say.... a different 4e monk...With lightning claws..... I can get kinda close but not really with Dragonborn/LizardFolk Storm Herald Barbarian/Shadow monk (Shadow is for pouncing from the darkness to get that stalkery monster feel) but its definitely really really hard to pull off effectively.


That's where alot of concepts are. Very hard to realize within the games current options, almost or too the point where homebrewing may just be a better option.

I think fluff can only do so much before you can't recognize what the fluff is surrounding anymore.

Though i agree with HidesHisEyes somewhat. D&D is D&D, not GURPS. It can only do so much.

[Rowan Wolf]

It seems to me that the summoner archetype is not really a good fit for most of the general design of 5e, but holds out in an almost sacred cow sort of way in the conjurer and lesser aspect the nature ally spells of the druid.

How would you implement them as the "all time" focus of a class without it hamstringing the player greatly (as the original PHB beastmaster is and the general additional limitations added to the UA revision)?

[Beelzebubba]

It seems to me that the summoner archetype is not really a good fit for most of the general design of 5e, but holds out in an almost sacred cow sort of way in the conjurer and lesser aspect the nature ally spells of the druid.

How would you implement them as the "all time" focus of a class without it hamstringing the player greatly (as the original PHB beastmaster is and the general additional limitations added to the UA revision)?

I think you'd need to create a few 'stat blocks' for different types of creatures (i.e. hit point sponges, venomous swarms, swift pursuers, ranged attackers, radiant aura damage doers, grapplers) at each level of the spell, and build a scaling mechanism. So, the hit point sponges could be themed as small earth elementals, wild boars, animated objects, whatever - but they'd have common stats that have a predictable game outcome.

I'd either choose the type of creatures you will summon at spell memorization, or limit choices at first and unlock more and more as time goes on, to mimic a Divine or Arcane casting style.

[Kite474]

A sort of counter-question for the OP (and anyone else): do we NEED D&D to be able to do absolutely any concept we can dream up? I know you're not asking for obviously setting/genre-breaking things like space robots, but the game is what it is and at some point you sort of have to accept that it determines its own genre and setting, don't you? I've been harping on this in other threads lately so I apologise, but there are games out there with character creation systems that are designed to let you create your own character concept from scratch and they don't involve picking a class (or they have like three or four very generic classes). But D&D gives you a list of concepts and says "pick one". That's just the way the game works. I dunno, I sometimes get a sort of fatigue at the whole thing of multi-classing three different classes in a weird balancing act to try and get the maximum power while realising some obscure concept. Not accusing anyone of bad wrong fun or anything, just an idea for an alternative perspective.

I do agree that a half arcane caster class would be nice. I've seen a decent homebrew Spellsword class actually, just can't remember where.

I agree on most of this but I think you may be forgetting something. In that next to no one really plays those other games. For better or worse D&D is THE fantasy game and getting people to play other fantasy games in most circles is pretty much like pulling teeth. Ergo the need arises to cover everything. Because people hate change

[Hooligan]

I'm not interested in Monks, Sorcerers or Rangers. Lets get them removed from the PHB.

Me either. Especially monks. Yeah, just tear out/delete those pages from your PHB/torrented PHB and....Viola!

[Rowan Wolf]

I think you'd need to create a few 'stat blocks' for different types of creatures (i.e. hit point sponges, venomous swarms, swift pursuers, ranged attackers, radiant aura damage doers, grapplers) at each level of the spell, and build a scaling mechanism. So, the hit point sponges could be themed as small earth elementals, wild boars, animated objects, whatever - but they'd have common stats that have a predictable game outcome.

I'd either choose the type of creatures you will summon at spell memorization, or limit choices at first and unlock more and more as time goes on, to mimic a Divine or Arcane casting style.

The general idea is to build all summoners on the caster chassis?

There is still the issue of action economy from the addition of creatures to the battle, but static damage values as opposed to rolls could help streamline the amount of table time the summoner's turn uses.

[Beelzebubba]

The general idea is to build all summoners on the caster chassis?

There is still the issue of action economy from the addition of creatures to the battle, but static damage values as opposed to rolls could help streamline the amount of table to.e the summoner's turn uses.

I haven't thought that far. Just the fact that pulling in random CR monsters is really inconsistent with regards to the value of, and power of, what you're summoning. It's way too 'swingy' in comparison to the rest of the rules. (Example: Pixies are utterly insane.) I feel like making them act as some kind of abstracted swarm might be a way to solve it.

I think I'll work up something for another thread rather than hijack this one.

[HidesHisEyes]

I agree on most of this but I think you may be forgetting something. In that next to no one really plays those other games. For better or worse D&D is THE fantasy game and getting people to play other fantasy games in most circles is pretty much like pulling teeth. Ergo the need arises to cover everything. Because people hate change

That's a good point, but I'm not sure the fact that D&D has cornered the market changes the fact that it will always have inherent limitations. Number of available character archetypes is probably one of the easier things to address. Try using D&D for a low-magic campaign where the PCs feel like underdog adventurers instead of superheroes. Now THAT's hard, and the thirst for more character types exacerbates it I think, because the PHB classes already define the limits of the system, so it's hard to introduce new things without getting power creep - in a game that's already about super-powered characters! That's my theory anyway.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I haven't thought that far. Just the fact that pulling in random CR monsters is really inconsistent with regards to the value of, and power of, what you're summoning. It's way too 'swingy' in comparison to the rest of the rules. (Example: Pixies are utterly insane.) I feel like making them act as some kind of abstracted swarm might be a way to solve it.

I think I'll work up something for another thread rather than hijack this one.

I was working on an elemental-themed pet class. Didn't get very far. I think I'd do something like the warlock chassis (cantrips+utility spells, limited slots) with fixed pets that level up with the character. No more than one on the field at a time.

Anyway, I'm interested in what you come up with.

[xroads]

For better or worse D&D is THE fantasy game and getting people to play other fantasy games in most circles is pretty much like pulling teeth.

I'm disagree with this. D&D certainly has the lion's share of the market. But it's not the only game out there. And those other games must have players, or otherwise they wouldn't still be published.

If you go to any game con, you can see this play out. D&D & Pathfinder will have about 2/3rds of the gaming slots. But the remaining 1/3rd is occupied by a plethora of other games.

My own group played lots of Warhammer Fantasy RPG (albiet, many of those years were the 4e years :smallamused:). We also mixed it up with a bit of Hero Fantasy and Savage Worlds.

[Blue Duke]

Pathfinder summoner/Synthesist AT....id love to have that so i could fluff the eidolon as a steam or golem suit.

[Kryx]

Pathfinder summoner/Synthesist AT....id love to have that so i could fluff the eidolon as a steam or golem suit.
If you're curious for homebrew my Summoner is probably my 2nd most popular homebrew. (See signature)

[Zorku]

Gonna second binders as being rather difficult to justify via fluff.

I was gonna say you can't be Chu Culain, but his warp spasms are actually a pretty decent fit for the terrible lycanthrope mechanics we've got right now.

-

We don't seem to have any half-arcane casters because there's this really different approach between the divines and arcanes. You got your 1/3rd casters as archetypes that sit on top of powerful base classes, but your half divines aren't archetypes but rather they're just baked into the class in general (except that terrible attempt at a ranger rework where the devs seemed to forget their own methods.) As such, 1/3rd divines should be fairly easy to slap onto the rogue or fighter as an archetype, while 1/2 arcanes are kind of forced to look a lot more like some of the more bland homebrew that people keep trying to make. Arcane paladin or ranger with reworked class features seems to be what you've got to do to make a 1/2 arcane caster.

-

Non-magic options are kind of weird in 5e because of how we saw things like hunter's mark become a spell. Although people complained about everyone bascally being a wizard in 4th, we're still kind of looking at a game where everyone is magical in 5th. 2 fighter archetypes, 1 rogue archetype and 1 barbarian archetype are all you get if you want to be completely divorced from magic, and I'm not even sure the devs really think that characters of those archetypes are completely devoid of magic.
*I'm lumping psionics in with magic here.


While I get that you can't do it mechanically; nothing about the *concept* of thief/acrobat screams a need for sneak attack to me
It's more like...
You're not really playing the concept if you ignore primary class features to do so. You could roleplay some massive slow weapon fighter by ignoring the extra attack feature and just saying that you're always too slow for that, but you might as well play a commoner by saying that you never level up past 2nd level if you're going to strip out the main functionality of your class. Play a druid except you never cast spells or wildshape and instead just hit people with tree branches. Play a sorcerer except you don't use any metamagic and you don't cast any spells with somatic components. A barbarian that does not rage.

If you think the thief-acrobat doesn't need sneak attack, then we seem to have very different ideas about what it was. Can you tell me what the acrobat is as a class, other than somebody with expertise at acrobatics checks?



If you go to any game con, you can see this play out. D&D & Pathfinder will have about 2/3rds of the gaming slots. But the remaining 1/3rd is occupied by a plethora of other games.
I didn't look too closely, but the last one I was at appeared to have just D&D and Pathfinder. There were folks playing board games or wargames, but none of the other roleplay ones.

Place was big enough to rent out the second biggest expo type space that conventions around me use, though a big portion of the floor was taken up by vidya.

There's a no-vidya type gaming con a little further away in a smaller venue that I've been to a few times, but they seem to only have adventure league showing up to run games in a panel room.

What's the smallest gaming con you've been to?

[SaurOps]

Me either. Especially monks. Yeah, just tear out/delete those pages from your PHB/torrented PHB and....Viola!

"I can't buy that! It's torn!"

[NecroDancer]

"I can't buy that! It's torn!"

don't you mean "improved"?:smallamused:

I wonder if you could make a dragon shaman in 5e, the closest I've gotten to one is a vengeance paladin.

[Naanomi]

I'd build an acrobat/thief as a rogue/(martial, probably fighter or monk) or, if I was feeling magical, a valor Bard

[Slayn82]

You can't build a proper General style character, that recruits average soldiers and lead them to greatness. Sure, you have palladins and Bards, but those guy's buffs are designed for the benefit of a small party.

What I mean is some kind of martial class that sacrifices his own abilities to force multiply by leading a score of recruits, with formations that deal damage and control battles on par with some caster effects. By drilling his soldiers, they temporarily get better proficiency and HP when scattered, but when nearby fight as a single unit, sharing HP and having a choice of special attacks if their leader concentrates on commanding them.

[HidesHisEyes]

You can't build a proper General style character, that recruits average soldiers and lead them to greatness. Sure, you have palladins and Bards, but those guy's buffs are designed for the benefit of a small party.

What I mean is some kind of martial class that sacrifices his own abilities to force multiply by leading a score of recruits, with formations that deal damage and control battles on par with some caster effects. By drilling his soldiers, they temporarily get better proficiency and HP when scattered, but when nearby fight as a single unit, sharing HP and having a choice of special attacks if their leader concentrates on commanding them.

I think that would be stepping outside the bounds of D&D's intended experience. The game assumes that a lot of it happens in cramped dungeons. Would your commander character be leading twenty soldiers into these places?

[warmachine]

Explosives and demolition expert. OotS 232 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0232.html) shows explosives in a high magic, medieval fantasy and I think it'd be funny to play a nutter that creates smoke and mess everywhere.

[JackPhoenix]

Explosives and demolition expert. OotS 232 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0232.html) shows explosives in a high magic, medieval fantasy and I think it'd be funny to play a nutter that creates smoke and mess everywhere.

You mean thief rogue (for BA object use) with pile of items?

[warmachine]

You mean thief rogue (for BA object use) with pile of items?
Explosives, muskets and grenades aren't available items in the PHB or easily produced by the PC without DM rule and setting changes, making it homebrew.

[JackPhoenix]

Explosives, muskets and grenades aren't available items in the PHB or easily produced by the PC without DM rule and setting changes, making it homebrew.

They are in DMG, p. 268. And in setting without gunpowder, you wouldn't be able to get them anyway.

[smcmike]

You can't build a proper General style character, that recruits average soldiers and lead them to greatness. Sure, you have palladins and Bards, but those guy's buffs are designed for the benefit of a small party.

What I mean is some kind of martial class that sacrifices his own abilities to force multiply by leading a score of recruits, with formations that deal damage and control battles on par with some caster effects. By drilling his soldiers, they temporarily get better proficiency and HP when scattered, but when nearby fight as a single unit, sharing HP and having a choice of special attacks if their leader concentrates on commanding them.

Yeah, this is beyond D&D's scope, in the same way that playing a brilliant poet or an awesome basketball player is beyond D&D's scope. There are applicable skill checks, and even related class abilities designed for tactical combat, but the game doesn't really model the activity in any depth.

There are other system limitations on archetypes: you can't make the characters from Attack on Titan because the movement involved is too complex to model well in a game.

[Rowan Wolf]

Thinking about it now the arcane characters in this edition have more combat longivity invested in cantrips as opposed to divine (with a few exceptions one of which borrows arcane cantrips to do so) with falls back on weapon attacks. Half casters for some reason lack cantrips which could further illistrate the divine nature of the magic they wield, while the third casters have cantrips and a arcane (wizard focused).

[rbstr]

A non-caster Shapshifter is definitely something that should exist.
You'd have the archetype selection at first level between a couple options. A tanky one, a quick/sneaky one, maybe a caster-y one.
It wouldn't pull monster stat blocks/ability scores. You'd get some benefits from features in the form and some outside of the form. Maybe you don't really even unlock the full transformation until later. Or it's a kind of build option for either channeling the form to fight with weapons or a full transformation.

My inspiration would come from the Fire Emblem games which have a number of transformation-type characters. You've got:
Manaketes - Turn into a dragon! Tanky and strong with a ranged breath attack (sometimes).
Taguel - a Rabbit thing, quick and hard hitting
Laguz - all sorts of things
Also Kitsune, Wolfskin

Also, I think The Arcane Archer illuminated a thing I think would make a full class. A magical martial class that is not a fighter with added spellcasting. It doesn't have spells but it has things like the arcane archers arrows. Like, instead of a cantrip it could pick up a magic attack that uses the attack action and is thus extra attack compatible. I think something like that would really improve on how gish-type characters could be built mechanically and concept wise.
My personal concept would have a dice pool for "mana" that the various magic abilities would spend.

[miburo]

I do agree that a half arcane caster class would be nice. I've seen a decent homebrew Spellsword class actually, just can't remember where.

It wouldn't happen to be my homebrew Spellsword in my sig below, would it :smalltongue:? If not I am totally not offended, just always looking for feedback.

The two concepts that are most missing for me are both 4E concepts (I think 5E covers 3E concepts pretty well already). The first is the Swordmage. Less about arcane half-casting (which is an acknowledged mechanical class) and more about the flavor of teleporting around the battlefield, protecting your friends, and smashing your enemies. The Stone Sorcerer seems to be a step in that direction, we'll see if it makes Xanathar's Guide.

The second concept is the Warlord. It was such a cool idea--an Int-based warrior that buffs his/her allies through tactics and force of will. Mechanically there are 5e concepts that help, like the valor bard, the purple dragon knight/banneret, and the crown oath paladin. But in each class these are side-items rather than the focus, given how strong the base bard/fighter/paladin classes already are. Is it possible to create an archetype that fits the warlord well without sacrificing the feel of the original class?

[Sariel Vailo]

Yeah, this is beyond D&D's scope, in the same way that playing a brilliant poet or an awesome basketball player is beyond D&D's scope. There are applicable skill checks, and even related class abilities designed for tactical combat, but the game doesn't really model the activity in any depth.

There are other system limitations on archetypes: you can't make the characters from Attack on Titan because the movement involved is too complex to model well in a game.
What about boots of flight also serious question i want r
To have titans in a extinction apocalypse setting

[smcmike]

What about boots of flight also serious question i want r
To have titans in a extinction apocalypse setting

I mean, sure. You could really just give your players VME's. The game doesn't model them well, which is my point. It is hard to depict complex 3D spaces with either table top or theater of the mind, and there are no rules that accurately describe the way Attack on Titan troops attack in any depth. The whole point of the combat is the mobility with the VME, and the skill with which the characters use these systems and overcome their limitations. Porting that to D&D, I imagine combat as something like this:

DM: A Titan approaches
PC: Are there tall trees nearby
DM: There are
PC: Are they positioned in such a way that I can use my VME to Attack the Titan!
DM: They are, but I need a skill check
PC: (passes)
PC: Attack roll, hits.
DM: The Titan dies. Here comes another Titan.
PC: I'll swing at that one too. Skill check... fail.
DM: The Titan swallows you whole. You are dead.

[Sariel Vailo]

I mean, sure. You could really just give your players VME's. The game doesn't model them well, which is my point. It is hard to depict complex 3D spaces with either table top or theater of the mind, and there are no rules that accurately describe the way Attack on Titan troops attack in any depth. The whole point of the combat is the mobility with the VME, and the skill with which the characters use these systems and overcome their limitations. Porting that to D&D, I imagine combat as something like this:

DM: A Titan approaches
PC: Are there tall trees nearby
DM: There are
PC: Are they positioned in such a way that I can use my VME to Attack the Titan!
DM: They are, but I need a skill check
PC: (passes)
PC: Attack roll, hits.
DM: The Titan dies. Here comes another Titan.
PC: I'll swing at that one too. Skill check... fail.
DM: The Titan swallows you whole. You are dead.
I was going to have them rapidly regenerate and as the dnd classes have qays to escape easier goliath barbarian i just wanted the creature to be tough encounters so apocalypse setting and titans with most of if not all races save goblins they were tasty fools

[Waterdeep Merch]

I mean, sure. You could really just give your players VME's. The game doesn't model them well, which is my point. It is hard to depict complex 3D spaces with either table top or theater of the mind, and there are no rules that accurately describe the way Attack on Titan troops attack in any depth. The whole point of the combat is the mobility with the VME, and the skill with which the characters use these systems and overcome their limitations. Porting that to D&D, I imagine combat as something like this:

DM: A Titan approaches
PC: Are there tall trees nearby
DM: There are
PC: Are they positioned in such a way that I can use my VME to Attack the Titan!
DM: They are, but I need a skill check
PC: (passes)
PC: Attack roll, hits.
DM: The Titan dies. Here comes another Titan.
PC: I'll swing at that one too. Skill check... fail.
DM: The Titan swallows you whole. You are dead.
Honestly, that's the real reason D&D just doesn't work with settings like that- it's supposed to be extraordinarily deadly, where a single mistake will get you eaten. It's integral to the theme.

You could probably manage the gear well enough with miniatures if you label heights. Add a simple, fast rule for inertia- something like, for every 15 feet you travel in the air during a turn, if nothing is stopping you, you will continue in that direction for another 5 feet even if you switch directions- and let fall damage do its thing, and viola! I'd hand-wave making skill checks for basic maneuvering if you're proficient in it. Too fiddly if you're making that a major facet of gameplay.

[JackPhoenix]

Also, I think The Arcane Archer illuminated a thing I think would make a full class. A magical martial class that is not a fighter with added spellcasting. It doesn't have spells but it has things like the arcane archers arrows. Like, instead of a cantrip it could pick up a magic attack that uses the attack action and is thus extra attack compatible. I think something like that would really improve on how gish-type characters could be built mechanically and concept wise.
My personal concept would have a dice pool for "mana" that the various magic abilities would spend.

You've just described monk class.

[smcmike]

Honestly, that's the real reason D&D just doesn't work with settings like that- it's supposed to be extraordinarily deadly, where a single mistake will get you eaten. It's integral to the theme.

You could probably manage the gear well enough with miniatures if you label heights. Add a simple, fast rule for inertia- something like, for every 15 feet you travel in the air during a turn, if nothing is stopping you, you will continue in that direction for another 5 feet even if you switch directions- and let fall damage do its thing, and viola! I'd hand-wave making skill checks for basic maneuvering if you're proficient in it. Too fiddly if you're making that a major facet of gameplay.

Sure, but the fiddliness of the movement is a large part of the point. They aren't free to just fly wherever they choose, and it's that constraint that makes it fun.

Also, the deadliness goes both ways. The Titans have a hard time landing a hit because the humans are so fast, and the humans have a hard time landing a hit because the target is small and high up on a deadly monster. But one hit kills either way.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Sure, but the fiddliness of the movement is a large part of the point. They aren't free to just fly wherever they choose, and it's that constraint that makes it fun.

Also, the deadliness goes both ways. The Titans have a hard time landing a hit because the humans are so fast, and the humans have a hard time landing a hit because the target is small and high up on a deadly monster. But one hit kills either way.
Those aspects would be better served by a completely unique system, as you said. Dedicated mechanics for the gear, a few survival and socio-political skills, and probably the understanding that the players use a pool of recruits instead of just having access to one character. Perhaps with experience carrying over to the rest of the squad when the inevitable day comes that they become the world's most unlucky sandwich.

And while HP might be a thing, certain things are simply death no matter what. Titan chomping equals death. Falling from a high enough height is death. Firearms are death. They connect, move on to another member of the Survey Corps. Try not to lose another dozen in this particular mission.

[JackPhoenix]

Those aspects would be better served by a completely unique system, really. Dedicated mechanics for the gear, a few survival and socio-political skills, and probably the understanding that the players use a pool of recruits instead of just having access to one character. Perhaps with experience carrying over to the rest of the squad when the inevitable day comes that they become the world's most unlucky sandwich.

And while HP might be a thing, certain things are simply death no matter what. Titan chomping equals death. Falling from a high enough height is death. Firearms are death. They connect, move on to another member of the Survey Corps. Try not to lose another dozen in this particular mission.

That still works with the default hp, however... all of those equal death, it's just that none of them really connects until you reach 0 hp. Call it luck, call it plot armor... doesn't matter, as long as you have hp remaining, you aren't being chomped on, but evading at the last moment for the dramatic tension.

[Sariel Vailo]

Those aspects would be better served by a completely unique system, as you said. Dedicated mechanics for the gear, a few survival and socio-political skills, and probably the understanding that the players use a pool of recruits instead of just having access to one character. Perhaps with experience carrying over to the rest of the squad when the inevitable day comes that they become the world's most unlucky sandwich.

And while HP might be a thing, certain things are simply death no matter what. Titan chomping equals death. Falling from a high enough height is death. Firearms are death. They connect, move on to another member of the Survey Corps. Try not to lose another dozen in this particular mission.

Good ideas.hey also how about living animals made from human beings. Like tusk some semblance of humanity deep beneath the surface but more animal than man.
Spiders giant spiders bears things like those.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/d11dfd0cd932e88b6e35cef5f88e694f/tumblr_nhalfuLhPR1rp0vkjo1_500.gif :

[Vogonjeltz]

Normally i would say that is a mechanical niche, since we do have unbalanced lycanthropes, but considering as far as I can tell absolutely no dm would allow a player to use it that's a good point!

How is "Evil Monster" a character concept?

Seems like a misuse of the term.


when I say I can't play a time-traveling cyborg from the future, that is a (probably good) absence of existing fluff to cover that concept

Agreed, and I would say the character concept would need to be a character, not merely a race or a curse (Vampirism, Lycanthropy, etcetera).


Another thing I miss are the shamans from 4e. The one's that can conjure a spirit like companion to tear up the enemy. Though I suppose beastmaster rangers can be refluffed to take this role.

The Totem Warrior (Barbarian) is a Shaman.


Still can't play a Blue Mage in D&D yet =/
My expectations are way out of left field here.

It's meta. That would never fit in a real roleplaying game.


This may sound dumb, but the fictional archetype that D&D is truly terrible at is the common man. In order for the game to be fun as a game, every character needs to be able to do a bunch of cool stuff, and there isn't much room for just sort of bumbling through a plot, which is what many, many, many fictional protagonists do. There isn't any good way to resolve this that I can think of, since the whole point of the common man archetype is that he isn't particularly powerful. I mean, I guess Frodo and Sam might have been level one rogues in a party full of level 5+ characters, but that isn't much fun.

I mean, the common man is more likely to get murdered than to survive any amount of bumbling. Most fictional protagonists actually become more competent at something to explain why they survive.

Without that, the only explanation is that they just have plot armor and then it's not a game anymore, it's just story time.


Putting aside things that are obviously out of genre (fighter pilot, space marine, detective) 5e doesn't have meaningful coverage for noncombatants, alchemists, or military leaders.

Alchemy is meaningfully covered by the Profession of Guild Artisan, which lets you join the Alchemist and Apothecary guild. (PHB 132) It also gives proficiency in a set of Artisan's tools, one of which is Alchemist's Supplies (PHB 154).

So, that's done.

Noncombatants are ruled out by virtue of being non-combatants, no PC should ever be one. It's unsuitable as a class concept. Insofar as it goes for NPCs, there are a wide variety of NPC stat blocks in the MM and Volo's that fit the concept. (Commoner being the most obvious one).

Military leadership is a role, it's not a profession. They would, almost universally, be Nobles/Folk Heroes, probably of the Fighter class if they had one at all. Getting people (NPCs) to follow your (PCs) lead is a matter of good roleplaying and social interaction, not mechanics.


I'm not interested in Monks, Sorcerers or Rangers. Lets get them removed from the PHB.

Except those are class concepts, whereas Lycan/Vamp are not.

And there's no reason someone can't just take levels in Barbarian and Wizard, it's just a terrible idea because the concepts are antithetical.

That's going to always be true, bad conflicting ideas will continue to be bad and conflicting.


I'd like a dedicated shapeshifter and a dedicated pet class. I'd like to play a character who is totally unremarkable in his normal form, but has an awesome pet or can turn into all kinds of crazy ****.

Druid of the Claw is a dedicated shapeshifter. Not only can they change into any kind of beast thanks to Wildshape and Polymorph access they can also turn into Elementals and, with Shapechange, basically anything that is alive.

Can you explain how that's meaningfully lacking in the concept of "Shapeshifting"?

Beastmaster is a dedicated pet subclass. That's obvious.


I wonder if you could make a dragon shaman in 5e, the closest I've gotten to one is a vengeance paladin.

What exactly is a Dragon Shaman? Can you explain in about one sentence without referencing a previous D&D version?


Yeah, this is beyond D&D's scope, in the same way that playing a brilliant poet or an awesome basketball player is beyond D&D's scope. There are applicable skill checks, and even related class abilities designed for tactical combat, but the game doesn't really model the activity in any depth.

There are other system limitations on archetypes: you can't make the characters from Attack on Titan because the movement involved is too complex to model well in a game.

That combat is item related, it has nothing at all to do with the characters. They're basically just fighters (or NPC Militia) with fancy equipment.

[rbstr]

You've just described monk class.

I mean I used the Arcane Archer as my example for a reason. That's pretty clearly not how the general Monk class works.
Though i guess the sun soul's archetype features get a bit close to the idea in a monk-like way.

[gloryblaze]

I'd love to be able to play a character similar to Azura from Fire Emblem: Fates - a dancer who gracefully wields a polearm, wearing either no or light armor. (Disclaimer: polearm = glaive or halberd or pike, not a quarterstaff)

Bladesinger Wizard is basically right on the dot in terms of fluff - gracefully weaving in and out of battle, music/dance theming - but it's impossible to use a polearm out-of-the-box with Bladesinger because no race grants glaive or halberd proficiency and the class can only grant proficiency in one handed weapons. Further, even if you get polearm proficiencies through multiclassing or the Weapon Master feat, it would be extremely anti-synergetic to use a polearm with a Bladesinger because Bladesong ends as soon as you make a weapon attack with two hands.

On the other hand, Kensei Monk works mechanically, if we count Unearthed Arcana. There's nothing preventing your 3 Kensei weapons from being glaive, halberd, and pike, as far as I can tell. The class even lets you use Dex instead of Str for your polearms, which is neat for fluff. The only problem is that Monk comes with a lot of flavor baggage - it has heavy ties to East Asia, it has somewhat religious overtones, and a lot of the class abilities are evocative in terms of flavor. I can't imagine a dancer catching an arrow out of the air and chucking it at the shooter, or releasing one end of their weapon and unleashing a flurry of unarmed strikes at an opponent.

IMO this sort of character archetype would be ideal for a subclass of Fighter or Ranger that allowed Dex in place of Str for glaive/halberd and granted high mobility and eventually multi-target melee attacks (along the lines of the Hunter's Whirlwind Attack, but maybe a tad better) in exchange for barring the use of heavy (and maybe even medium) armor. It might or might not include and Unarmored Defense feature, depending on how the balance shakes out. Name would be something like "Battle Dancer" or "Whirling Dervish".

Alternatively, I could see it being boiled down to an additional Fighting Style option for fighters rangers and pallys. Something along the lines of "Graceful Lancer: you can choose to use Dexterity instead of Strength for attack and damage rolls when wielding a glaive or halberd. If you are wearing light armor or no armor, gain +1 to AC."

Currently, melee Dex fighters usually do Sword and Board with a rapier and the Dueling style. This puts them at 11.5 damage per attack (4.5 from 1d8, 2 from dueling, 5 from max Dex) and 19 AC (12+5 for studded leather, +2 from a shield). Our new Fighting Style would put a Dex fighter at 10.5 damage per attack (5.5 from 1d10, + 5 from max Dex) and 18 AC (12+5 from studded leather, +1 from Fighting style). In return for being one point lower in both offense and defense, we get a 10 foot reach rather than a 5 foot reach.

Of course, this Fighting Style would also give our Dex fighter access to Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master in exchange for access to Shield Master and Defensive Duelist*, which is almost certainly a net positive for the polearm Dex fighter. So depending on how much we want to take feats (optional rule) into account, we should maybe remove the +1 AC from the style and let the 10 ft reach speak for itself and allow the option to grab PM and GWM to make up for the lost power.

*although our style lets us use Dex with polearms, in the same way as the Finesse keyword, it does NOT actually grant the finesse keyword. This is to prevent unwanted and potentially broken multiclass synergy with Rogue, among other things.

[HidesHisEyes]

A non-caster Shapshifter is definitely something that should exist.
You'd have the archetype selection at first level between a couple options. A tanky one, a quick/sneaky one, maybe a caster-y one.
It wouldn't pull monster stat blocks/ability scores. You'd get some benefits from features in the form and some outside of the form. Maybe you don't really even unlock the full transformation until later. Or it's a kind of build option for either channeling the form to fight with weapons or a full transformation.

My inspiration would come from the Fire Emblem games which have a number of transformation-type characters. You've got:
Manaketes - Turn into a dragon! Tanky and strong with a ranged breath attack (sometimes).
Taguel - a Rabbit thing, quick and hard hitting
Laguz - all sorts of things
Also Kitsune, Wolfskin

Also, I think The Arcane Archer illuminated a thing I think would make a full class. A magical martial class that is not a fighter with added spellcasting. It doesn't have spells but it has things like the arcane archers arrows. Like, instead of a cantrip it could pick up a magic attack that uses the attack action and is thus extra attack compatible. I think something like that would really improve on how gish-type characters could be built mechanically and concept wise.
My personal concept would have a dice pool for "mana" that the various magic abilities would spend.

Recently I was thinking about a version of Fighter that would handle Eldritch Knight in this way. Make the manoeuvres and superiority dice the core feature of all fighters. Each subclass gets a different list of manoeuvres to select from. Champions get stuff that buffs their own attacks and defences, battle masters get battlefield control type stuff like a lot of the existing battle master manoeuvres, EKs get magical ones. I'd also include "commander" or "warlord" for stuff that buffs your allies.

[smcmike]

I mean, the common man is more likely to get murdered than to survive any amount of bumbling. Most fictional protagonists actually become more competent at something to explain why they survive.

Without that, the only explanation is that they just have plot armor and then it's not a game anymore, it's just story time.

Yes. That's what I was saying. D&D is not good an mimicking many character concepts that work just fine in stories.

Many stories, even combat-heavy stories, have major characters that are useless in combat, or close to it. Those sorts of characters are strictly NPCs in D&D.



That combat is item related, it has nothing at all to do with the characters. They're basically just fighters (or NPC Militia) with fancy equipment.

Item-related sure, but with a skill proficiency and a special attack. My point is that not only does D&D not have much structure to support many out of combat ideas, it also doesn't have the structure to support some visions of combat.

[Mikemical]

Cowboy Samurai.

[alchahest]

Cowboy Samurai.

isn't that just a samurai with a cool hat?

[Ninja-Radish]

Cowboy Samurai.

Or a Cowboy of the Bebop variety.

[mephnick]

On the other hand, Kensei Monk works mechanically, if we count Unearthed Arcana. There's nothing preventing your 3 Kensei weapons from being glaive, halberd, and pike, as far as I can tell. The class even lets you use Dex instead of Str for your polearms, which is neat for fluff..

Kensai cannot use weapons with the Heavy or Special properties unfortunately.

[gloryblaze]

Kensai cannot use weapons with the Heavy or Special properties unfortunately.

Ah, I see now that I was referencing the first draft of the Kensei (from UA: Monk), instead of the most current version (from UA: Revised Subclasses). This makes me want a "graceful polearm user" even more, as it literally can't be done as far as I can tell. Probably the closest we can get is a Str Ranger with Polearm Master and Whirlwind Attack, which is suboptimal on... many levels, to say the least.

[Potato_Priest]

Druid of the Claw is a dedicated shapeshifter. Not only can they change into any kind of beast thanks to Wildshape and Polymorph access they can also turn into Elementals and, with Shapechange, basically anything that is alive.


What's this druid of the claw you're talking about?

Second, note the difference between class and subclass.

Combat wild shape is a subclass feature. It's less customizable and weaker than the shapechanging of a theoretical dedicated shapeshifter class, who would not have spellcasting, with all their features centred around shapeshifting instead. It would play very differently than the current druid, who is a full caster with moderate shapeshifting powers.

When I said you can't play a dedicated pet guy, I meant someone who isn't a badass while their pet is. Your beastmaster beast is too weak to be much more than an assistant in combat, because it's a subclass feature, rather than the focus of a full class.

You could of course choose not to use any of your regular class features to achieve the desired archetype, but that would be the equivalent of a wizard choosing only to cast from their specialty school of magic, an eldritch knight never using weapon attacks or armor, or a four elements monk spending all their ki points on their subclass magics. You can, but it's a terrible choice and not well supported mechanically.


How is "Evil Monster" a character concept?

Seems like a misuse of the term.

Apparently you've never played in a high school D&D game.

To be more serious, being an evil monster could well be a part of a character concept. It's obviously not the whole thing, but neither are any of the current classes or races. I think that a way for people to play as those popular evil monsters in a more balanced fashion would be a good idea. Because races in 5e generally don't seem powerful enough for a lycanthrope or vampire to fit there, they would probably work best as classes.

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

I'm kind of sketchy on the UA that have touched on more modern settings; is there any wotc material for guns (that's not so bad nobody would ever use it)?
Sorry, presuming that nobody replied to you on this. Aside from the firearm stats we got in the DMG, there are only two WoTC articles talking about guns, both from August 2015:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/my-new-d20-modern-campaign - This presented the author's house rules on gun proficiencies (sidearm vs. longarm), added a new "ballistic" damage type to replace the common Piercing type, and some new "modern armors"

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modern-magic - This follow-up unearthed arcana mostly focused on new spellcaster subclasses for D20 Modern games.

There's literally no official material on guns outside of what I've told you about.

[warmachine]

I'm inspired by my favourite class in the video game Darkest Dungeon: Plague Doctor. It's essentially an alchemy-based support class that releases vapours to buff, heal and remove status effects, and throw flasks to poison, blind or disorient enemies. I think alchemy in general is an underdeveloped, medieval trope.

[Naanomi]

It's meta. That would never fit in a real roleplaying game.
I could see it easy enough; something like Spell slots to do a limited duration polymorph, but you keep your shape and Stats and only switch out abilities. Hard to balance in 5e but easily done in some game systems

What exactly is a Dragon Shaman? Can you explain in about one sentence without referencing a previous D&D version?
I'd be hard to do with many existing subclasses I'd guess... but something like 'a person who reveres dragons and gains their powers and inspirational abilities'... probably doable already with Dragon Sorcerer and or Valor Bard; though a 'Dragon-Pact Warlock' would probably do it a touch better

I'm inspired by my favourite class in the video game Darkest Dungeon: Plague Doctor. It's essentially an alchemy-based support class that releases vapours to buff, heal and remove status effects, and throw flasks to poison, blind or disorient enemies. I think alchemy in general is an underdeveloped, medieval trope.
Sounds like a Transmuter wizard who throws flasks of material componants as part of their spellcasting fluff

[JackPhoenix]

It looks like the problem with many people is that by "character concept" they mean "specific mechanical thing (propably from one of the overbloated previous editions) that doesn't really say much about the character, and which I refuse to emulate through the use and/or refluffing of existing options, because those aren't the exact specific mechanic I want, and/or it would be mechanically less than perfectly optimised and balanced".

[SaurOps]

How is "Evil Monster" a character concept?

Seems like a misuse of the term.


To one vision of possibilities for it, yes. But consider the UA's primal savagery cantrip; it allows a druid to maul someone by briefly changing their hands to claws or teeth into long fangs. Also, the mystic has an entire discipline devoted to effects like this. The door on the concept of "bestial shapeshifter who works through mechanically impressive shapeshifting tricks" is open; it can't really stay closed, now.



What exactly is a Dragon Shaman? Can you explain in about one sentence without referencing a previous D&D version?


Someone who bonds with a primal spirit of a dragon and develops features of a dragon? I wasn't there for that, but the concept as explained in wiki seems basic enough.

[warmachine]

[Darkest Dungeon Plague Doctor] Sounds like a Transmuter wizard who throws flasks of material components as part of their spellcasting fluff
I don't have my PHB in front of me but I'm certain wizards lack healing abilities and Plague Doctors, by their very name, can heal diseases. This suggests re-fluffed Cleric but I don't remember Clerics having much in crowd control spells.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I don't have my PHB in front of me but I'm certain wizards lack healing abilities and Plague Doctors, by their very name, can heal diseases. This suggests re-fluffed Cleric but I don't remember Clerics having much in crowd control spells.
The current alchemist artificer could emulate the effects handily. I'm not going to get into whether it's a particularly strong class or anything as I know the artificer is high performance skub right now, but all of the plague doctor's abilities are very well represented there.

[Naanomi]

I don't have my PHB in front of me but I'm certain wizards lack healing abilities and Plague Doctors, by their very name, can heal diseases. This suggests re-fluffed Cleric but I don't remember Clerics having much in crowd control spells.
Healing, buffing, crowd control... so a Druid then? They even have herbalism tools baked in

[GlenSmash!]

The Totem Warrior (Barbarian) is a Shaman.

I'd say the Ancestral Guardians Barbarian is more of a shaman then the Totem Warrior, as it actually uses the power of spirits to hurt and hinder it's foes, as opposed to taking on aspects of a wild animal.

[xroads]

I miss the elemental savant. The closest I've seen to it were some elemental themed UA sorcerers.

[Knaight]

Alchemy is meaningfully covered by the Profession of Guild Artisan, which lets you join the Alchemist and Apothecary guild. (PHB 132) It also gives proficiency in a set of Artisan's tools, one of which is Alchemist's Supplies (PHB 154).

So, that's done.

Noncombatants are ruled out by virtue of being non-combatants, no PC should ever be one. It's unsuitable as a class concept. Insofar as it goes for NPCs, there are a wide variety of NPC stat blocks in the MM and Volo's that fit the concept. (Commoner being the most obvious one).

Military leadership is a role, it's not a profession. They would, almost universally, be Nobles/Folk Heroes, probably of the Fighter class if they had one at all. Getting people (NPCs) to follow your (PCs) lead is a matter of good roleplaying and social interaction, not mechanics.

The term "alchemist" in this case refers more to the various combat alchemist archetypes, and Guild Artisan doesn't get you there. Noncombatants are totally fine as PCs in plenty of systems, and the idea that no PC should ever be one is demonstrative of 5e's limits. They also exist in every other edition of D&D, but that doesn't mean the limits aren't there. As for military leadership, things like small group tactics, strategy, logistics etc. are routinely covered by mechanics outside of D&D, because there's more to military leadership than just getting people to follow your lead.

[ed57ve]

An enhacenment shaman from world of warcraft

dual wielding claws with elements infused in it, reactive mechanics, there was a chance of windfury procs, and the storm shield

i think in general i wold love a more reactive gameplay, like if i attack there is a change of getting a extra attack or procs from spells

[Rowan Wolf]

An enhacenment shaman from world of warcraft

dual wielding claws with elements infused in it, reactive mechanics, there was a chance of windfury procs, and the storm shield

i think in general i wold love a more reactive gameplay, like if i attack there is a change of getting a extra attack or procs from spells

Tempest Cleric with a bit of druid (for "ghost wolf") the claws are missing, but you could easily go two-weapon route, with light hammer or hand axes, but if the "fist style weapon are that important you could add some monk for unarmed combat skills maybe going 4 elements to grab fangs for the fire snake for a flame tongue type attack.

[Malifice]

Avenger

Vengance paladin + Assasin.


Warlord

Purple dragon knight fighter or Battlemaster fighter, [protection fighting style, inspiring leader and martial adept feats] plus a splash of Crown Paladin and Valor Bard (with 'spells' being fluffed as ToB style martial manouvers).