New classes wanted?

[ZorroGames]

A poster suggested they want not more subclasses but new classes because they found current ones bland tropes (paraphrased.)


I didn't mention Prestige Classes at all in that post you referenced. I want new base classes, not subclasses or prestige classes. I find most of the base classes to be dull, generic fantasy tropes. And the ones that aren't overused and unimaginative (Warlock, Sorcerer) are horribly designed and terrible to play.

However, I quite like your "classless PC toolkit" idea!



Okay, here you are.

What new classes do you want?

Me? I am fine with the current choices though there is one that is weaker than the others IMHO.

How about you? Do you see additional classes 5e needs?

[Aett_Thorn]

While I think that the addition of subclasses is just fine (and would help classes be able to break away from their tropes), I wouldn't mind some new well-thought out classes. Namely, I wouldn't mind an Artificer class that was actually well put together (the most recent UA one just feels way off), and a Mystic class that was a bit rebalanced. After that, I don't particularly want any more.

[DragonBaneDM]

As a long-time 4E player, I've really enjoyed hunting down things from the old system that rolled over to 5E and seeing which class they came back to. A good example is the Avenger class from 4E inspiring the Oath of Vengeance feature giving almost constant advantage.

However, I still miss the fluff and powers that went along with wearing a cloth armor and wielding the vengeance of an angry god and a fullblade. So here's what I wouldn't mind seeing again:

Avenger
Shaman
Warden
Warlord
Swordmage

Yeah, I know I could just play a Paladin, Druid, Fighter/Barbarian, Battlemaster/PDK, or Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger and call them these things, but I really did love those classes. The longer I played them, the more they felt like a Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, or Rogue when it came to individual identity. I've logged more time in the above classes than I ever did as most of the traditional base classes.

So whenever tells me "Oh just play a Ranger with a beast companion that you fluff as a spirit", that kinda feels like if someone told me "Oh, if you miss Warlock, just make a Sorcerer build based around Magic Missile and call it Eldritch Blast!". Like yeah, I could do that and have a ton of fun, but if these classes came out in even a semi-official setting like UA, I'd be thrilled.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Honestly, I'd prefer interesting mechanics over any particular name. I like the mystic and artificer class rough drafts, despite balancing issues on both, because they work on some unique mechanics that could be fun to play. Warlock is a very popular class in part because nothing else plays like it. Paladin is better loved than the ranger, the other half caster, because they get tools that are more fun to use. Sorcerer is often maligned next to the wizard because despite being nearly as good, their toys aren't ultimately more fun to play with (metamagic compared to the potential for every spell in the game, to say nothing of how much better wizard subclasses are than sorcerer ones).

I don't want 'exactly like these two classes put together' or 'basically this class but reskinned to fit nature/arcane/whatever'. I could do that myself, right now, with minimum hassle.

[Maxilian]

Well... i want Rune Master.

I really liked the Prestige class in the UA, was not OP and was basically a class to MC into, IMHO that's good as it adds options for more concepts (in general, it was great for any Elemental Rogue/Paladin/etc.... concept)

[Koren]

I don't want 'exactly like these two classes put together' or 'basically this class but reskinned to fit nature/arcane/whatever'. I could do that myself, right now, with minimum hassle.

It's for this reason that I question the mass of subclasses that seem like they're trying to pull from another class. EK was nice as a "spell warrior" concept, bladesingers seem unnecessary with it though. Then there's the Wizard-Cleric which can be done with both a Wizard and a Cleric as a base for some reason?

My point is, they had these old concepts people loved, why do they add a Cleric subclass to every other class instead of literally anything else?

[Scripten]

Honestly, I'd prefer interesting mechanics over any particular name.

-snip-

I don't want 'exactly like these two classes put together' or 'basically this class but reskinned to fit nature/arcane/whatever'. I could do that myself, right now, with minimum hassle.

So much this. One of the biggest issues I have with most suggestions for new classes is that they don't really fill any sort of niche or do anything interesting. There's a TPP book out there, I won't name names, which consists ~90% of classes that are completely possible to do with the current PHB. For example, it contains what amounts to basically a wild magic sorcerer class with a specific arcane focus rather than leaving the fluff option open.

I do understand the desire to push for classes like the Warlord, though, because they have mechanics, at least conceptually, that are not really represented in the game as-is. That said, in most cases I'd argue that those classes would do better as sub-classes of what we already have. (The Artificer and Mystic are examples that I think could make for interesting classes.)

[Sirithhyando]

Duskblade ! (My favorite 3.5 class)

[Potato_Priest]

I don't care what they're called, but I'd like a full-on shapeshifter class and a full-on pet class. Moon druid and beastmaster are fine and all, but they're subclass options, and thus don't have the focus and customization that I would like to see in those areas.

[xroads]

Shaman
Summoner

I like the idea of shaman's and/or witch doctor's. But I don't think any of the current classes really capture the flavor for me. Both the mechanics & the fluff of clerics & druids don't seem to lend themselves to shamans in my mind.

And I always loved playing a general/puppetmaster class. So it would be nice to have some sort of summoner class.

[Findulidas]

I quite like the oozemancer from tales of majeyal. I would have him as a sort of druid completely based on nature spells that arent the norm of trees, plants and animals. More microbes, fluids, fungi and oozes. Make him much more like a pure caster with less armor and weapon prof. Have the class have healing and shielding spells that are based on ooze, fungus and the like. Perhaps another int based caster like wizard? Perhaps more based on knowledge and experiments in the fields of nature and less of inherent nature magic like the druid. Perhaps using the inherent force of life/nature like a wizard?

Something along those lines.

[FreddyNoNose]

What he wants is one of the new tropes. Such as "avoiding the trope trope" or the "anti-trope trope". Perhaps, the "I want to seem original trope". Certainly nothing original in this request......

[Sariel Vailo]

As a long-time 4E player, I've really enjoyed hunting down things from the old system that rolled over to 5E and seeing which class they came back to. A good example is the Avenger class from 4E inspiring the Oath of Vengeance feature giving almost constant advantage.

However, I still miss the fluff and powers that went along with wearing a cloth armor and wielding the vengeance of an angry god and a fullblade. So here's what I wouldn't mind seeing again:

Avenger
Shaman
Warden
Warlord
Swordmage

Yeah, I know I could just play a Paladin, Druid, Fighter/Barbarian, Battlemaster/PDK, or Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger and call them these things, but I really did love those classes. The longer I played them, the more they felt like a Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, or Rogue when it came to individual identity. I've logged more time in the above classes than I ever did as most of the traditional base classes.

So whenever tells me "Oh just play a Ranger with a beast companion that you fluff as a spirit", that kinda feels like if someone told me "Oh, if you miss Warlock, just make a Sorcerer build based around Magic Missile and call it Eldritch Blast!". Like yeah, I could do that and have a ton of fun, but if these classes came out in even a semi-official setting like UA, I'd be thrilled.

So i agree with his choices i want about 90 % more 4e classes i agree

[JBPuffin]

I'd like to see WotC bring out a shadow power source - ala 4e's assassin - and (which may tie into the first request) something that does a lot of teleporting. Other than that? I'm good for official stuff.

[Ravinsild]

I want to see the Executioner, Blackguard and Vampire as classes because 4e's Heroes of Shadow is my favorite book.

Consequently I've been in a somewhat small project of converting all the main classes and races over from 4e. I'm sure it's been executed terribly, but at least it's something :/

"Just play a Rogue assassin!" well I liked the Executioner's poisons. "Just play an oathbreaker or oath of conquest paladin!" their base class mechanics don't make any sense to me with those themes. "I'm an undead summoning evil bad guy who bolsters my wicked forces...and I can lay on hands even though it has no effect on my undead comrades..and cure disease...and sense evil...I sense myself!"

Also the Vampire as a class idea was so novel to me, instead of a race or monster with adjusted CR, that it just had to come over to 5e. It means you can BE a vampire of any type. Vampiric Halfling, Dragonborn, Orc, Drow, etc... awesome!

[Tanarii]

From 4e, Swordmage. Specifically a character that short range teleports around the battlefield as part of their attacks. It could be more striker than defender and I'd be fine with that.

I'd be okay with a full on psionics release too. But not the Mystic. It just doesn't feel like Psionics to me. Of course, for Psionics to feel like Psionics to me, it needs to be insanely complicated. So that doesn't really feel like 5e at that point. It's a conundrum. :smallamused:

[MrStabby]

I wouldn't mind high quality new classes.

Sometimes I wonder if it is that I just find I don't like implementations of existing classes though.

For example I would like a more fragile druid with a focus on organisms and spellcasting. No wildshape, d6 HD, no armour proficiency, spells not including the elemental theme... Sadly there isn't really the spell selection to support it. Best I did was a Sorcerer base with the druid spells on top (DM gave me nature cleric abilities to replace the archetype ones).


I would also like a class better able to use Int in combat. A while ago I homebrewed a class to support surgical strikes and to produce poisons etc.. I would like to see soemthing official that would play out like that.


Things like the arcane trickster and eldritch knight don't quire work for me (EK is kind of OK). They feel like the magic is just bolted on rather than being part of the character. On the other hand the spellcasting of the shadowmonk seems much more natural and more deeply embedded in the class (as does ranger/paladin). I think these arcane 1/3 casters would have worked better as an arcane combatant class but with extra fighter/thief abilities added on rather than the other way round.

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

EK was nice as a "spell warrior" concept, bladesingers seem unnecessary with it though.

Just had to comment on this: the reason why we have both the Eldritch Knight and the Bladesinger is that they represent very different takes on the "Gish" archetype.

EKs are dabblers, they don't get spells until a fair way into their class and they never grow beyond a certain level of spellcraft.

Now, that's fair, sometimes a character's concept is "fighter with just a hint of magical skill", or a player doesn't want to overly complicate things. But it's not the true gish; a true gish is a character who is equally adept at both martial combat and magic, something made to replicate the AD&D Multiclassed Fighter/Mage experience.

That's what the Bladesinger does. It lets you have a full arcane caster who is also a capable melee combatant.

[Tanarii]

That's what the Bladesinger does. It lets you have a full arcane caster who is also a capable melee combatant.Except that's not at all what the Bladesinger does. Blade singers are dabblers at melee. Just like the EK is a dabbler at casting, specifically focusing on cantrip/attack rotation and occasional AoE blasts.

A true Gish would be something like an EK 12 / Wiz 8, advancing 2 wizard for every 3 EK as leveling. Of course, that's still not exact, because you'll be casting at level 12 character for level 6 slots, but only level 4 spells in them.

[Ravinsild]

Except that's not at all what the Bladesinger does. Blade singers are dabblers at melee. Just like the EK is a dabbler at casting, specifically focusing on cantrip/attack rotation and occasional AoE blasts.

A true Gish would be something like an EK 12 / Wiz 8, advancing 2 wizard for every 3 EK as leveling. Of course, that's still not exact, because you'll be casting at level 12 character for level 6 slots, but only level 4 spells in them.

Yeah I found the Bladesinger to be wholly underwhelming as a gish. It's limited uses of melee capability X times per day put a huge damper on it for me.

[Jamesps]

I think some classes that are just monsters would be really fun. I'd love to play a sentient zombie or awakened golem with fully fleshed out abilities that increase with level.

[foobar1969]

I reiterate my votes from 2 years ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?432521-Classed-to-the-Past-Splatbook-to-the-Future):



Artificer, Psion & Psychic Warrior (already on the way)
Shaman / Spirit Shaman
Warlord
Tome of Battle (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427454-Tome-of-Battle) classes
last but not least, a balanced & playable TRUENAMER



However, I still miss the fluff and powers that went along with wearing a cloth armor and wielding the vengeance of an angry god and a fullblade.
That's really not hard to do. Take Vengeance Paladin and replace armor proficiency with Unarmored AC=10+Dex+Cha. Add a couple custom spells and you've got the entire 4E Avenger back.


Shaman
Warden
Warlord
Swordmage

Bladesinger with Bond and Sword Burst make it clear that WotC considers Swordmage to be back already.

[Koren]

Just had to comment on this: the reason why we have both the Eldritch Knight and the Bladesinger is that they represent very different takes on the "Gish" archetype.

EKs are dabblers, they don't get spells until a fair way into their class and they never grow beyond a certain level of spellcraft.

Now, that's fair, sometimes a character's concept is "fighter with just a hint of magical skill", or a player doesn't want to overly complicate things. But it's not the true gish; a true gish is a character who is equally adept at both martial combat and magic, something made to replicate the AD&D Multiclassed Fighter/Mage experience.

That's what the Bladesinger does. It lets you have a full arcane caster who is also a capable melee combatant.

I could see it. To be fair 5e is my first tabletop rpg at all, I hadn't heard the term Gish until I found this forum. I had a different, broader idea of a Spell Warrior.

Bladesingers definitely are very different from EK functionally. My issue is mostly with the Cleric tacks on other classes, especially considering how healing is viewed as less useful.

[Biggstick]

The only thing I'd really like to see added is an Arcane 1/2 half caster primary Martial character.

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of Divine 1/3 caster primary Martial character as well. This could be done with something like a Rogue or Fighter though I guess, (replace AT or EK spell lists with Cleric spell list/abilities).

[Knaight]

The Mystic has been interesting thus far and doesn't seem to work as a subclass, so I'd be happy to see one or more classes pulled from that. A dedicated shapeshifter that doesn't have other magic could also be fun.

Then there's the idea of microsetting books, which are intended to be used as a replacement for the classes/feats/spells/monsters/equipment in the PHB and MM, even if some of the classes work out somewhat similarly. A microsetting book pulling from the mythologies of southern China, Siam, and the Khmer empire could be really cool. So could one that focuses on different steppe cultures, including steppe cultures as they conquer and settle, pulling from those mythologies (Huns, Magyar, Mongols, Seljuk Turks, etc.).


What he wants is one of the new tropes. Such as "avoiding the trope trope" or the "anti-trope trope". Perhaps, the "I want to seem original trope". Certainly nothing original in this request......
Pointing out that the D&D classes are pulling from a very narrow slice of fantasy is totally legitimate. It pulls almost exclusively from English, French, Greek, and Norse myth and legends, plus Tolkein. Wanting to see a broader base is hardly just wanting a new trope.

[suplee215]

Outside of Artificer I thinkt he stereotypical archtypes get eveything we need. Every time I try to think of a class I think it'll be better as a subclass. Perhaps I'm not thinking of one.

[Khrysaes]

Binder.

Marshal/Dragon Shaman Esque, aura master. The paladin touches upon this, but that is more of the addition rather than the focus.

Incarnum class may be interesting as well, could fit with the binder with both being subclasses, but then so could a soulknife.

[skaddix]

Something similar to a Magus so you don't have to mix Paladin, Sorcerer and Warlock to make a decent Gish.

[Arcangel4774]

I wouldn't know what to call it, but a martial character that revolves around different fighting styles or forms as a concept.

[suplee215]

I wouldn't know what to call it, but a martial character that revolves around different fighting styles or forms as a concept.

Why not be a fighter and just switch up the weapon? You can even go champion for 2 fighting styles (Dueling and Archery). Kensie Monk is also able to switch it up due to weapon differences. I am playing a barbarian walking around with a maul, a war pick, a shield, 2 handaxes, javelins, a whip and took tavern brawler (character is a bouncer) and in each battle so far I played slightly differently. When fighting redshirts I just wanted to knock out I punched them, when fighting a boss I grabbed my shield and used my warpick, when going against Black Guard I just picked the maul to kill as soon as possible pretty sure I'll be hit. Whip is in case I need tiny range, handaxes is for twf and javeline is range. I feel like the only downside to this type of character build is weapon items being rare you want to focus on whatever item you find.

[Ninja-Radish]

For me personally, as someone who loved 4e and particularly the new and innovative classes in that edition, here's my wish list: Warden, Warlord, Swordmage, Shaman.

The game also needs some type of summoning class. Also, there needs to be a martial psionic option like the 4E Battlemind. No, the Immortal Mystic doesn't count because it's horribly designed.

Also, I'd love to see the two worst classes in the game, Sorcerer and Warlock, torn apart and completely redone like the Ranger. When I remember how awesome the 4e Warlock was, the pitiful 5e version makes me a very sad panda.

[foobar1969]

When I remember how awesome the 4e Warlock was, the pitiful 5e version makes me a very sad panda.
Really? The 4E optimization forums were always complaining that Warlock was the worst of the core strikers by a wide margin.

5E Warlock could stand a few tweaks, but it has a lot of capabilities (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428074-3E-Warlock-vs-5E-Warlock-in-pictures).

[Arkhios]

Warlord is obvious choice for me from 4e.

But I also liked the Rune Priest conceptually. However, I'd settle with any Rune Based caster-ish class. The Rune Scribe Prestige Class having been scrapped and the runes from SKT are a bit lame approach (or lack of it) in this regard.

Shaman would be great addition, but I doubt it would be much different from Druid to be honest. Unless they will make a Circle that is complete opposite of Moon Circle (instead of improving upon it, eschewing Wild Shape altogether with a spirit kind of thing)

[Talionis]

Binder.

Marshal/Dragon Shaman Esque, aura master. The paladin touches upon this, but that is more of the addition rather than the focus.

Incarnum class may be interesting as well, could fit with the binder with both being subclasses, but then so could a soulknife.
This is a good list.

Binder could be a Warlock subclass, maybe.
Marshal could be a Paladin subclass.
Incarnum was really an interesting class that needs it's own class and book.
Arificer needs to be fleshed out.
Mystic too.

I'll add to the list, Chameleon/Factotum. I think this low magic Jack of All Trades charleton who dabbles in all the classes.

[ZorroGames]

I see a lot of "leaving 4e regret" here but the possibility of bringing bounded accuracy classes into 5e from 4e certainly in many examples stated should be viable.

Any more?

[mr-mercer]

I still want a class that fully specialises in non-magical unarmed combat: the core monk class has some inherent spellcasting abilities no matter what you do, and I'm not satisfied with subclasses for fighter or barbarian because you still have two levels where you're either stuck doing barely any damage with your punches, or you're stuck with a weapon that you don't want because the point of the character is that they don't use weapons. I seriously need some kind of brawler/street fighter class, to replicate my Yakuzies.

[suplee215]

I still want a class that fully specialises in non-magical unarmed combat: the core monk class has some inherent spellcasting abilities no matter what you do, and I'm not satisfied with subclasses for fighter or barbarian because you still have two levels where you're either stuck doing barely any damage with your punches, or you're stuck with a weapon that you don't want because the point of the character is that they don't use weapons. I seriously need some kind of brawler/street fighter class, to replicate my Yakuzies.

What inherit spellcasting does the monk have? I mean sure it does some weird thing by level 20 but none are spells. Also a human variant with tavern brawler is the best bet if you want your brawler.

[Wilb]

I'm still waiting for the "new base class" they promised, which would be like the Next playtest sorcerer, with spells(or something else) using a very small pool of (long rest recovering) expendable points, with passive features activating as those points were spent.

[Arkhios]

I'm still waiting for the "new base class" they promised, which would be like the Next playtest sorcerer, with spells(or something else) using a very small pool of (long rest recovering) expendable points, with passive features activating as those points were spent.

I believe that refers to the Mystic.

[Ninja-Radish]

Really? The 4E optimization forums were always complaining that Warlock was the worst of the core strikers by a wide margin.

5E Warlock could stand a few tweaks, but it has a lot of capabilities (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?428074-3E-Warlock-vs-5E-Warlock-in-pictures).

Really? I had fun playing a Fiend pact Warlock in 4e. I never really paid much attention to the Char Op forums though.

I'm playing a 5e Bladelock right now and it's just been a miserable experience. I'm gonna try my hand at a blastlock and see if it goes any better. I doubt it though, it's such a badly designed class.

[Quoxis]

Some non-magic alternatives. Low-magic campaigns are difficult to do without heavy refluffing, because out of all classes we have four non-magical ones (barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue), two of which get 1/3-caster subclasses, while the other two get sort of spells... And all of them are plain weapon users.
I want a combat medic/buffer without having to rely on feats, i want a real artificer that can make improvised scrap-weapons or attack with self-brewed elixirs, i want viable and playable mechanics for laying out traps and so much more...

Plus some other sorcerous origins. Dragons aren't the only non-humanoid race that could influence a humanoid to develop magic.

[foobar1969]

Some non-magic alternatives. Low-magic campaigns are difficult to do without heavy refluffing, because out of all classes we have four non-magical ones (barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue), two of which get 1/3-caster subclasses, while the other two get sort of spells... And all of them are plain weapon users.
I want a combat medic/buffer without having to rely on feats,
Non-magic non-weapon user? That sounds like another vote for Warlord. Huzzah!

IMO, Monk barely counts as a non-magical class, but variant spell-less Ranger certainly does.

[Arkhios]

Non-magic non-weapon user? That sounds like another vote for Warlord. Huzzah!

IMO, Monk barely counts as a non-magical class, but variant spell-less Ranger certainly does.

Way of the Open Hand kind of qualifies as non-magic user... For the most part. Sure, ki is just another source of magic, but effectively it's subtle enough to allow it.

[Scripten]

I still want a class that fully specialises in non-magical unarmed combat: the core monk class has some inherent spellcasting abilities no matter what you do, and I'm not satisfied with subclasses for fighter or barbarian because you still have two levels where you're either stuck doing barely any damage with your punches, or you're stuck with a weapon that you don't want because the point of the character is that they don't use weapons. I seriously need some kind of brawler/street fighter class, to replicate my Yakuzies.

I've been thinking about designing something like this recently. The general idea would be a simple combo system where more powerful/useful techniques and forms are unlocked in sequence. The biggest problem I foresee is that combats are generally done in just a few rounds so the player might end up losing their chance to shine too often.