After Mystic and Artificer...what's next?

[Smitty Wesson]

Just a curiosity - once we get these two in-development classes...what classes would still be on the table to develop?

A lot of the 3.5 classes, in particular, are getting love as subclasses. It's easy to think of a few previous edition classes showing up this way - Warden, Warlord, Marshal, maybe Spellthief. This has already been done with Hexblade, Knight, Scout, Swashbuckler, Warmage, and others - Mystic's subclass list seems like it's trying to cover every single psionic class from 3.5 and 4e. It's easy to imagine the Tome of Battle classes showing up as Fighter or Rogue subclasses - adding maneuvers to the base class in a manner similar to the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Tricker's spellcasting.

Looking over the list of 3.5 classes in particular - the Binder is the one that stands out to me as one that could merit a full class. It has some similarity in concept to a Warlock, but there seems to be enough in terms of actually different mechanics and approach that it would work as a new class.

The Factotum is also pretty distinctive, but then, it seems quite easy to accomplish the concept with a little multiclassing. But, it could work in 5e if only as another Intelligence-based class.

Are there any other classes anyone thinks get the full treatment in 5e? Or is it subclasses for miles after those big two additions?

[8wGremlin]

As long as the binder follows the 3.5 version and not the 4e travesty I'd be very happy.

[Mortis_Elrod]

The long lost prophesied arcane Int based half caster martial that would bring on a new age of Dungeoning and Dragoning.

[ImperiousLeader]

I'd like to see a summoner, Pokémon trainer-esque class. It's something that other classes can do, but a primary summoner class would be interesting.

It'll never happen, but I would like to see another attempt at Incarnum. It was odd, but I kinda liked it.

[Regitnui]

Totemist. If I recall my 3.5 correctly, it was an Incarnum class (Secrets of Incarnum) that "mantled" different animal parts and gained abilities from them. "Mantling" a scorpion's tail gave them a (blue) spectral tail with very real poison. A bird's wings would give them flight, a lizard's fingers the ability to climb, tiger's fangs a vicious bite attack. It could slot into the "Shaman" l archetype, perhaps sharing a few features with the Binder. They'd cover the primal side of spellcasting; while a druid protects the wilds, a "Shaman" would protect a tribe or be a wild man.

Picture this; A shaman class with totemist and binder subclasses, one focused on channeling animal/beast abilities (dragon's scales up AC) and the other focusing on channeling lost spirits or forgotten gods (ancient soldier spirit ups attack and gives proficiency). The totemist could be a support class and the binder a skirmisher. The overall class could hold abilities that invoke or banish spirits (banishment spell?) along with channeling the abilities into other beings or greater control. Possible other subclasses include "Witch" (channels broken or dark spirits into enemies as curses) or "Inspired Vessel" (channels an extraplanar celestial/fiend/fey).

Or am I rambling here?

[RickAsWritten]

arcane Int based half caster martial

I bought Pillars of Eternity the other day(yes I'm a console pleb). I feel like the Chanter class would be an interesting design space for the arcane half-caster. Get rid of the musical/chant fluff. Make it have a proclivity for melee, with auras that buff or debuff. And if we're gettin' crazy, give it a (very)limited ability to concentrate on two spells at once, for a few rounds max. Call it a Spellweaver or something. It would be cool, but might be way too strong. I don't know. I'm not great at the design phase.

[Avonar]

I would love to see a 5e Runepriest. I played a homebrew version, not sure where from, and I do really enjoy the concept.

[Nifft]

5.5e, with Dragonfire Adepts, Totemists, Binders, Warlords, better Warlocks, fixed Elemental Bender Monks, and a slew of other assorted minor tweaks which make the game 200% better and slay a few of the holy cows that keep trying to stand up.

[Erit]

I'd like to see a summoner, Pokémon trainer-esque class. It's something that other classes can do, but a primary summoner class would be interesting.

It'll never happen, but I would like to see another attempt at Incarnum. It was odd, but I kinda liked it.

I second this notion so hard that words cannot adequately express it. Incarnum was an awesome system that didn't even have that many kinks to work out, it was just this perfect dash of flavour and flexibility to any build or concept you could dream up, and as a core build element it could be appreciably Tier 3.

Bring on the Incarnum, Wizards! My Con score is ready!

[jaappleton]

The long lost prophesied arcane Int based half caster martial that would bring on a new age of Dungeoning and Dragoning.

I'd personally like to see it as a short rest caster, but that's my opinion.

[jaappleton]

I would love to see a 5e Runepriest. I played a homebrew version, not sure where from, and I do really enjoy the concept.

Runepriest was one class I saw in 4E and absolutely adored. Never got the chance to actually play one, and I know it never got the proper support since it was introduced relatively late in 4E's life, but damn was it cool.

Seconded.

I'd love to see it as a 5E half caster, Wisdom based, short rest casting, with a blend of Cleric and Paladin spells to choose from. And Totem Barbarian style archetypes, with multiple choices of effects you can get that you can change each short rest.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I'd personally like to see it as a short rest caster, but that's my opinion.

thats fine by me

[Unoriginal]

Maybe Dervish Dancer.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Maybe Dervish Dancer.

yes, with a proper twf supporting mechanic. Either something that makes it worth it to bonus action twf every turn or idk.

[HolyDraconus]

I rather see incarnum actually done right. It was fun, it effectively was the 3rd magic source, and it was balanced.

[Deleted]

Runepriest was one class I saw in 4E and absolutely adored. Never got the chance to actually play one, and I know it never got the proper support since it was introduced relatively late in 4E's life, but damn was it cool.

Seconded.

I'd love to see it as a 5E half caster, Wisdom based, short rest casting, with a blend of Cleric and Paladin spells to choose from. And Totem Barbarian style archetypes, with multiple choices of effects you can get that you can change each short rest.

Runepriests were amazing but tend to fall short, not because of the class itself (that's great) but because WotC forgot it existed after putting it out :smallfurious:

But anyways, what should come next is actually the BoED and BoVD. Give us a book of good and a book of evil. Fill it with fluff, fill it with feats, and fill is with powerful outsiders.

Then give us three generic classes (warrior, bandit, and caster) and options for both good and evil "build your own classes".

Give us the fluff, lay it on thick... But change a lot of the regular class features to be fluffed in specific ways. Tell me why sneak attack is evil or tell me why the good sneak attack is considered good. Hell, have the two books actively contradict each other.


Edit

For those that want Incarnum, like me, the way they seem to want to do Psionics is pretty much a fluff-less Incarnum class.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'd totally be down with Incarnum getting the 5e treatment - Hells, you could even just have one general Incarnum-user class (Avatar?) and have the three subclasses be Incanate, Totemist and Soulborn. Let them each have their own lists, and give the Totemist Multiattack (some sort of specialized Extra Attack-like feature) and just straight up give the Soulborn Extra Attack. I mean, if nothing else, the Revised Ranger set the precedence of having Extra Attack be a subclass feature.

[Deleted]

I'd totally be down with Incarnum getting the 5e treatment - Hells, you could even just have one general Incarnum-user class (Avatar?) and have the three subclasses be Incanate, Totemist and Soulborn. Let them each have their own lists, and give the Totemist Multiattack (some sort of specialized Extra Attack-like feature) and just straight up give the Soulborn Extra Attack. I mean, if nothing else, the Revised Ranger set the precedence of having Extra Attack be a subclass feature.

Psion.

I don't actually like what they were doing with psionics and I don't think it would work for Incarnum... But what you and others are describing is the Psion.

I think you should make it a base class of Incarnate, Totemist, and Soulborn and not squish them into one class... Feels cheap and like they didn't want to put effort into a sub system that a lot of people love.

[Saiga]

Valor Bards/Bladesingers already get Extra Attack from their subclasses so that sounds fine.

Has there ever been a Lycanthrope/Werewolf class in 3rd or 3.5?

[Deleted]

Valor Bards/Bladesingers already get Extra Attack from their subclasses so that sounds fine.

Has there ever been a Lycanthrope/Werewolf class in 3rd or 3.5?

Totemist kinda...

But yeah there was some sort of prestige class or maybe a base class in 3.0.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think the Archivist and the Binder. The Archivist doesn't use wisdom, and I don't think there's a subclass that uses a different spell-casting ability then the parent class, and making it a wizard is edging in on the Theurge's territory and is really strange.

The Binder is thematically like a warlock, but I think it would be hard to represent its abilities while riding on the Warlock class. It could also lead to different subclasses very easily, such as a spiritualist who binds spirits of the land, or a necromancer who binds ghosts to their own soul, or a shadow caster who augments themselves with shadow magic.

[Erit]

The Binder is thematically like a warlock, but I think it would be hard to represent its abilities while riding on the Warlock class. It could also lead to different subclasses very easily, such as a spiritualist who binds spirits of the land, or a necromancer who binds ghosts to their own soul, or a shadow caster who augments themselves with shadow magic.

Just be careful not to let Tome Of Magic's third segment fall into the pot or it'll spoil the mix.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Just be careful not to let Tome Of Magic's third segment fall into the pot or it'll spoil the mix.

If only there was a caster who focused on the lore of creatures, so much that he found a hidden language that could control anything that he could name. A true name that resonates so profoundly within that any creature who's true name was spoken by another would be powerless...

That be a nice rune priest or wizard subclass. I know it's a new idea and all but maybe it's time that WoTC did something new with magic.

[Regitnui]

The long lost prophesied arcane Int based half caster martial that would bring on a new age of Dungeoning and Dragoning.

Put that into Google for you and got:
Did you mean "Eldritch Knight" or "Bladesinger"?


5.5e, with Dragonfire Adepts, Totemists, Binders, Warlords, better Warlocks, fixed Elemental Bender Monks, and a slew of other assorted minor tweaks which make the game 200% better and slay a few of the holy cows that keep trying to stand up.

In the immortal words of Shepherd Derrial Book; "Not gonna happen".

Seriously though, what offends people so much in 5e that they keep calling for "5.5" rule patch? Isn't this the most balanced edition ever? Wasn't there like three years of playtesting with actual unbiased players before WotC even started commissioning artists for the Starter Kit? Haven't we seen almost everything in XGtE because WotC wanted to double check subclass concepts in UA at least once before they made them official?

Personally, I'm starting to write off people who demand 5.5 as novelty-seekers who want a new system because 5e isn't to their exact tastes. As in "I don't like this aspect of 5e so we need to throw out Core and start all over again to make 5.5e". You do know that there'll be something that doesn't agree with you in 5.5e as well, right? Even in 6e if you're on the design team and given full creative control. I'm sure there's things that individual employees of WotC dislike in the game, but they put them in because someone else does. There's an employee in WotC who thinks tiefling warlocks are immature, and another who thinks that flanking rules are a relic of D&D's wargaming roots.

5e is not made to please individuals. It was made to please everyone and provide a balanced tabletop experience. Has it failed at that? Then stop demanding they fix what isn't broken.

[Foxhound438]

In the immortal words of Shepherd Derrial Book; "Not gonna happen".

Seriously though, what offends people so much in 5e that they keep calling for "5.5" rule patch? Isn't this the most balanced edition ever? Wasn't there like three years of playtesting with actual unbiased players before WotC even started commissioning artists for the Starter Kit? Haven't we seen almost everything in XGtE because WotC wanted to double check subclass concepts in UA at least once before they made them official?

Personally, I'm starting to write off people who demand 5.5 as novelty-seekers who want a new system because 5e isn't to their exact tastes. As in "I don't like this aspect of 5e so we need to throw out Core and start all over again to make 5.5e". You do know that there'll be something that doesn't agree with you in 5.5e as well, right? Even in 6e if you're on the design team and given full creative control. I'm sure there's things that individual employees of WotC dislike in the game, but they put them in because someone else does. There's an employee in WotC who thinks tiefling warlocks are immature, and another who thinks that flanking rules are a relic of D&D's wargaming roots.

5e is not made to please individuals. It was made to please everyone and provide a balanced tabletop experience. Has it failed at that? Then stop demanding they fix what isn't broken.

yep. if there's like 2 things that are slightly off to someone they immidiately demand everything goes, and I feel that's kind of a poor attitude.

[Marcloure]

The way 5e works, most of classes from past editions would fall into archetypes of base classes. The Warden, the Runepriest, the Shaman, basically all psionics, you can group them with Paladins, Clerics, Druids and the Mystic, as is in Unearthed Arcana. Of course you could tell them from the base classes with enough unique abilities, but I think this isn't the intent of the 5th edition.
That said, I would really like to see the so much praised Warlord from 4E and a decent Truenamer.

[Arkhios]

The way 5e works, most of classes from past editions would fall into archetypes of base classes. The Warden, the Runepriest, the Shaman, basically all psionics, you can group them with Paladins, Clerics, Druids and the Mystic, as is in Unearthed Arcana. Of course you could tell them from the base classes with enough unique abilities, but I think this isn't the intent of the 5th edition.
That said, I would really like to see the so much praised Warlord from 4E and a decent Truenamer.

Truthful deduction, imho. As for Warlord, while waiting for them to release an official one, please, check out my take on the class (link in my signature). It should be fairly similar to the 4th edition Warlord, since I used it as the inspiration, while combining features from valor bard and battle master fighter to keep the class somewhat in line with the rest of the 5e.

My hunch about the topic, however:

They've hinted towards the introduction of alternative class features for not only Ranger, but for other classes as well, and I think that might just be their next goal.

A book introducing new classes (artificer and mystic, at least) and alternative features for existing classes, both to "fix" and to offer more minor options, would be quite interesting in my opinion.

As for the suggested totemist someone mentioned earlier, I think Mike Mearls said at some point during the earlier stage of Artificer's design that shaman might end up being a sub-class for Artificer, which does make sense to me as totems basically are items with magical properties or otherwise have magically related qualities, which falls perfectly within the Artificer's talents.
Also, now that I think of it, some sort of rune scribe might also be fitting archetype for Artificer.

I could see that when Artificer and Mystic are released, they'd have more archetypes than just two or three (as Mystic already suggests with the UA), bringing them more in-line with the rest of the classes which by the time of Xanathar's release, will all have a huge amount of them as well.

[Rogerdodger557]

The long lost prophesied arcane Int based half caster martial that would bring on a new age of Dungeoning and Dragoning.

Even though I have a Magus for the Pathfinder games I play on and off, I'd be fine if they pumped the Artificer from 1/3rd caster to a 1/2 caster. I don't understand why its not.

[Deleted]

The way 5e works, most of classes from past editions would fall into archetypes of base classes. The Warden, the Runepriest, the Shaman, basically all psionics, you can group them with Paladins, Clerics, Druids and the Mystic, as is in Unearthed Arcana. Of course you could tell them from the base classes with enough unique abilities, but I think this isn't the intent of the 5th edition.
That said, I would really like to see the so much praised Warlord from 4E and a decent Truenamer.

If all the base classes were made to be on the same page, I would agree.

However using the Fighter as your base instantly gimps a lot of what you can do with fighting type archetypes.

Not only do you have to wait three levels (utter bullcrap) but you are restricted with what you can make.

The Battlemaster, Champion, and EK were gimped to begin with because WotC still thinks that extra attacks (espevially during levels that people hardly ever play) is such a dynamic and wonderful ability. Really reminds me of 3e when they vastly overvalued multiple attacks.

So, I would rather see a class that gets interesting things be made from scratch than trying to patch an existing class.

[NecroDancer]

I'd want some sorta of duskblade/magus/half casting intelligence martial class.

And a warlord for sure, I would love a warlord.

[Regitnui]

Deleted, I don't think any subclass is hobbled by having the fighter skeleton supporting it. It is, after all, the best base for a pure martial. That's what it's for. If WotC want to build a Warlord or Swordsage on a pure martial base, the fighter skeleton is for holding all those dry and drab abilities like extra attack and second wind.

[Honest Tiefling]

As for the suggested totemist someone mentioned earlier, I think Mike Mearls said at some point during the earlier stage of Artificer's design that shaman might end up being a sub-class for Artificer, which does make sense to me as totems basically are items with magical properties or otherwise have magically related qualities, which falls perfectly within the Artificer's talents.
Also, now that I think of it, some sort of rune scribe might also be fitting archetype for Artificer.

Also means that like the Bramble Brewer(Alchemist with more of an herbalist flavor) from Pathfinder, it easily makes the artificer work in more primitive or frontier campaigns which can sometimes be a weakness. That's a nice touch.

[Deleted]

Deleted, I don't think any subclass is hobbled by having the fighter skeleton supporting it. It is, after all, the best base for a pure martial. That's what it's for. If WotC want to build a Warlord or Swordsage on a pure martial base, the fighter skeleton is for holding all those dry and drab abilities like extra attack and second wind.

It is completely hobbled. Look at everything you can do with the wizard, cleric, or even the rogue. The Fighter ends up doing one thing and one thing only, deal damage, all the other classes can be built to perform more than one thing.

The Fighter are hobbled as they all are held back because the Fighter wasn't designed properly.

You can have a pure martial that is built on the same page as other classes, the Rogue is a great example of this after all.

The fighter has no identity that isn't overshadowed by someone else OR is done almost as well and they can do other things in addition to doing that one thing well. Take the Barbarian for example, they can do that damage and be built for other things (Wolf Totem makes for a great Leader/Controller).

You can have a simple class that isn't so one dimensional, but when you make a one dimensional class so far in that one dimension (and have such a high view of that one dimension even when it isn't all that great) the rest of the class suffers, including the subclasses.

I don't know of a single other class that gets as many fixes as the fighter, yeah other classes get made or they add to them, but no other class gets fixed quite like the fighter.

Pure damage just isn't that strong of a play style when you have a team game where everyone can do respectful damage AND gets other cool things.

[jaappleton]

I hate this. I absolutely despise it, this makes me absolutely sick to my stomach and I regret everything about it, and I sincerely want no part of this in the future. Ever. Under any circumstances.

However, I say this of sound mind and body, and under no duress...

I.... agree.... with Deleted.

Well over half the Warlord builds that I ever saw were Lazylord builds; ones specializing in having allies make their attacks for them, often times with a bonus.

The Fighter base class in 5E is terribly suited to that.

The closest thing I could think of that’d fit is some sort of spell-less Paladin variant, though the closest official thing is Mastermind Rogue.

Since so much of the base Fighter class is dedicated to swinging a weapon, it’s terribly suited to any sort of Lazylord conversion.

[Arcangel4774]

Having onoy started at 5e, i wouldnt know what the class is, but a martial thats gimmick is fighting forms or stances or something. Of course i could see it being a fighter subclass pretty darn easily.

[Honest Tiefling]

Am I the only one missing the Crusader? I know the paladin occupies the same niche thematically, but there's just something about a class that is as holy as the paladin but accomplishes the will of the Divine by hitting things really, really, hard.

[Dudewithknives]

I'd personally like to see it as a short rest caster, but that's my opinion.

They could just make artificer a half caster.

Also, no more short rest casters until the rest cycles are put in stone as mandatory.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I believe a new class should either occupy a unique story function (sorcerer vs wizard, without getting into the issues with the sorcerer as it sits presently) or a unique gameplay function (paladin vs cleric). The mistake a lot of homebrewers seem to make is creating things which serve neither of these purposes all that well, and is instead just a niche redefining of specific abilities, often in a bland and overpowered manner (a warlock that uses a scythe and is spookier! A sorcerer but they have token abilities like fairies! Dark edgelord conversion of the paladin but with warlock casting! Etc. etc.).

Warlords, done right, fit both of my criteria as battlefield commanders that focus on teamwork instead of personal power. I'd love to see a good one.

I've wanted a mechanical trap-based class since third edition. Someone that can create, set, and utilize multiple traps on the fly, relying on good positioning and foresight. I don't mean a rogue with a handful of subclass powers, I mean a full-blown non-magical tinkerer. I may never live to see this one, and admit it may be too complex to handle right.

The swordmage fit a unique niche as a magical defender with a ton of mobility, something I'd prefer to see out of any arcane half-caster. So much so that I built one.

A dabbler that does do a bit of everything but isn't a bard (which occupies a very different story niche), likely playing fast and loose and working with luck to overcome their lack of specialization. I've had a work in progress on this one.

Finally, something completely unexpected. This edition has no unique classes, unless you count the mystic as something brand new instead of a psionic amalgamation that ate the Wu Jen's brains for nourishment. I'm sure there's room for a weird new class.

[Regitnui]

I hate this. I absolutely despise it, this makes me absolutely sick to my stomach and I regret everything about it, and I sincerely want no part of this in the future. Ever. Under any circumstances.

However, I say this of sound mind and body, and under no duress...

I.... agree.... with Deleted.

Well over half the Warlord builds that I ever saw were Lazylord builds; ones specializing in having allies make their attacks for them, often times with a bonus.

The Fighter base class in 5E is terribly suited to that.

The closest thing I could think of that’d fit is some sort of spell-less Paladin variant, though the closest official thing is Mastermind Rogue.

Since so much of the base Fighter class is dedicated to swinging a weapon, it’s terribly suited to any sort of Lazylord conversion.

Are you feeling alright? Need a moment to lie down?

I'm not particularly inclined towards the fighter myself, but as a Base Martial, it works perfectly well. It doesn't need to have a gimmick because its gimmick is that it is just a fighter. But a question for Deleted; if the fighter is so bad, why have people clamoured for the ranger and sorcerer to be "fixed" (*cough*realigned to meet personal tastes*cough*) before the fighter? For all the negatives, the fighter works.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Are you feeling alright? Need a moment to lie down?

I'm not particularly inclined towards the fighter myself, but as a Base Martial, it works perfectly well. It doesn't need to have a gimmick because its gimmick is that it is just a fighter. But a question for Deleted; if the fighter is so bad, why have people clamoured for the ranger and sorcerer to be "fixed" (*cough*realigned to meet personal tastes*cough*) before the fighter? For all the negatives, the fighter works.
I'm not meaning to answer for him, but I'd assume it's due to the lack of flexibility that the fighter chassis affords its own subclasses. You're right that the core fighter is very good at what it does- fighting. It's also very bad at doing anything else, and a subclass can only make up for so much of that, especially when some of the core power of the fighter was sanded off on purpose so that it could be added back by whatever subclass they took, further hampering the amount of utility they could possibly gain there without some severe bloat. They also seem to be deathly afraid of letting a fighter even begin to approach the non-combat utility of their martial brother, the rogue class.

[Spiritchaser]

First I want an arcane half caster
After that I’d like rules for divine paladins who take oaths to specific gods
After that more races (Avariel?)
After that more generic / non setting specific adventure books

[SaurOps]

Are you feeling alright? Need a moment to lie down?

I'm not particularly inclined towards the fighter myself, but as a Base Martial, it works perfectly well. It doesn't need to have a gimmick because its gimmick is that it is just a fighter. But a question for Deleted; if the fighter is so bad, why have people clamoured for the ranger and sorcerer to be "fixed" (*cough*realigned to meet personal tastes*cough*) before the fighter? For all the negatives, the fighter works.

Low expectations? The complete absence of hope stemming from who's running the show? You can try to clamor for change, but if the same people with the same design sensibilities are the ones that are going to be redesigning a fighter, you're highly likely to make about the same mistakes. Getting a different fighter means changing a lot of the basic ideas about the game, which is usually what happens when you roll out another edition.

[Jama7301]

I kinda want to see an Avenger from 4e. I liked a holy striker. Maybe a Warlock subclass or somethin'. I dunno.

[Honest Tiefling]

I kinda want to see an Avenger from 4e. I liked a holy striker. Maybe a Warlock subclass or somethin'. I dunno.

I played 4e, but only a little bit and never encountered these guys. What are they like, and how they different from a dex based paladin?

Another archetype I'd like to see is the Holy Sneak. I guess one could do it with the Trickery Domain, but I'd like to see more options for it. Then again, even Third Edition was bad for that.

[Asmotherion]

If those two design failure of classes actually make it in 5e, we might as well get Lore Master and 500 prestige classes, and get it over with -_-

I'm really disapointed. :(

[Telwar]

I played 4e, but only a little bit and never encountered these guys. What are they like, and how they different from a dex based paladin?

2h-wielding, cloth-wearing holy slayer types. They literally descend from the Al Qadim Holy Slayer archetype. Their primary schtick was their Oath of Enmity, which they put on a target and it let them roll 2x to hit.

So...it's basically the Oath of Vengeance paladin. An easy way of doing Avenger in 5e I saw around here was to swap out a paladin Heavy Armor proficiency for a Dex+Cha* Unarmored Defense, and maybe a few other things.

* - Avenger ran off of Wis, but it's a paladin for this build, so Cha.

Now that I think of it, it could probably be a good beneficiary of an Alternate Class Feature to get that built.

[Saiga]

2h-wielding, cloth-wearing holy slayer types. They literally descend from the Al Qadim Holy Slayer archetype. Their primary schtick was their Oath of Enmity, which they put on a target and it let them roll 2x to hit.

So...it's basically the Oath of Vengeance paladin. An easy way of doing Avenger in 5e I saw around here was to swap out a paladin Heavy Armor proficiency for a Dex+Cha* Unarmored Defense, and maybe a few other things.

* - Avenger ran off of Wis, but it's a paladin for this build, so Cha.

Now that I think of it, it could probably be a good beneficiary of an Alternate Class Feature to get that built.

I've been brainstorming ideas for Alternate Class Features, like giving Monk's 'Iron Shirt' (Str+Wis for AC) to allow strength builds.

This sounds like a good way to enable Avengers without creating a new class/subclass.

[Regitnui]

Low expectations? The complete absence of hope stemming from who's running the show? You can try to clamor for change, but if the same people with the same design sensibilities are the ones that are going to be redesigning a fighter, you're highly likely to make about the same mistakes. Getting a different fighter means changing a lot of the basic ideas about the game, which is usually what happens when you roll out another edition.

But that's just it. If you have "a complete absence of hope", why not play a different game? I hate FPS games, and so instead of logging on and making the genre even more toxic, I don't play them. 5e is probably the most interactive edition ever. Complaining about the designers is indirectly complaining about the fanbase, because all of us who play UA should get a "beta testers" credit.

I said it before; years of pre-release testing, and name a single subclass in XGtE that we haven't seen in UA at least once. Yes, Mearls and Crawford are paid by WotC to do the day-to-day business of D&D, but the fans; you, me, and every single player; have had input into the design of 5e since day 1. Everyone who gripes and complains that X part of the game isn't to their tastes should understand that. It's not like WotC came to your house and asked you your opinion to make you a game. They went to everyone and asked everyone to make a game for everyone. Of course there will be parts you dislike.

Starting to sound like the Pokémon fandom in here; an human with spikes and a wolf head is fantastic and best Mon ever, while barnacles, construction worker rabbits, living mechanical systems and electric whoopie cushion flounders are "lack of creativity" and "running out of ideas".

[8wGremlin]

I’d like some more cross over feats.

We have spell sniper, Ritual caster, and magic initiate.

I’d like a fighting style feat to go with martial manoeuvres.

Plus I’d like a 3.5 binder link class.

[Arkhios]

I’d like a 3.5 binder link class.

I'm not too familiar with the Binder but at a glance it would seem very similar to Summoner from Pathfinder if a Vestige is intended as equal to an Eidolon (a strange entity summoned to serve you).

Personally I don't like the idea that you could have two competent combatants with one class. (Opinion biased due to Summoner + Eidolon cheese which could solo encounters. It might be fun for that one player, but it kills the fun for others)

[Regitnui]

(Opinion biased due to Summoner + Eidolon cheese which could solo encounters. It might be fun for that one player, but it kills the fun for others)

Not saying this seems to be behind a lot of "improvements" suggested by people. Not saying that at all.

[SaurOps]

But that's just it. If you have "a complete absence of hope", why not play a different game?

People have a variety of reasons for doing this. For example, it's just what their peer group does, so they find a different part of the game to camp down in and wait. They might be waiting for a really long time, and in that time, they might indeed end up somewhere else.



I hate FPS games, and so instead of logging on and making the genre even more toxic, I don't play them. 5e is probably the most interactive edition ever. Complaining about the designers is indirectly complaining about the fanbase, because all of us who play UA should get a "beta testers" credit.

Except that clamoring for the fighter to do something besides attack and only occasionally do something interesting, people are clamoring for it to do something interesting all the time. This is not making the game more toxic; it is airing a grievance that is quite reasonable. Which then gets ignored because of a pervasive attitude that the fighter should be "uncompplicated" or whatever the excuse du jour is.

Then no one does anything of substance to change things. D&D then becomes the thing that you abandon... assuming that your group fits it in, or you break with them.



I said it before; years of pre-release testing, and name a single subclass in XGtE that we haven't seen in UA at least once. Yes, Mearls and Crawford are paid by WotC to do the day-to-day business of D&D, but the fans; you, me, and every single player; have had input into the design of 5e since day 1. Everyone who gripes and complains that X part of the game isn't to their tastes should understand that. It's not like WotC came to your house and asked you your opinion to make you a game. They went to everyone and asked everyone to make a game for everyone. Of course there will be parts you dislike.

Well, technically, I only came in a few months ago because the mystic looked like it might be on the cusp of something interesting, and other games were having a slow production cycle. Now that circumstances have changed, I might be able to pull myself from the gravity of nostalgia and back into a strict orbit of where I was earlier in the year.

It takes some time to accomplish this, even when you know that D&D has failed you hard a decade and a half or so prior, and before that, and...



Starting to sound like the Pokémon fandom in here; an human with spikes and a wolf head is fantastic and best Mon ever, while barnacles, construction worker rabbits, living mechanical systems and electric whoopie cushion flounders are "lack of creativity" and "running out of ideas".

Do all the other ones just have basic attacks to use all the time, while the first one can make wishes? Because if so, that comparison might be relevant to the present topic.

[Smitty Wesson]

I'm not too familiar with the Binder but at a glance it would seem very similar to Summoner from Pathfinder if a Vestige is intended as equal to an Eidolon (a strange entity summoned to serve you).

Personally I don't like the idea that you could have two competent combatants with one class. (Opinion biased due to Summoner + Eidolon cheese which could solo encounters. It might be fun for that one player, but it kills the fun for others)

The Binder, at base, is more about being possessed by the vestige than having it as a companion. More magical augmentation than summoning allies, which is a bit more of a unique spin.

[RickAllison]

I said it before; years of pre-release testing, and name a single subclass in XGtE that we haven't seen in UA at least once.

Sun Soul Monk and Mastermind Rogue :smallwink:. They never were in Unearthed Afcana, they just got put into SCAG

[8wGremlin]

I'm not too familiar with the Binder but at a glance it would seem very similar to Summoner from Pathfinder if a Vestige is intended as equal to an Eidolon (a strange entity summoned to serve you).

Personally I don't like the idea that you could have two competent combatants with one class. (Opinion biased due to Summoner + Eidolon cheese which could solo encounters. It might be fun for that one player, but it kills the fun for others)

It’s not a summons entity.
You basically bind your soul to a vestige for a day.

Each vestige gives you different abilities based on who or what it is. These can be at wills, feats, spell access, auras anything really.

At higher levels you can bind more vestiges at the same time.

[Arkhios]

The Binder, at base, is more about being possessed by the vestige than having it as a companion. More magical augmentation than summoning allies, which is a bit more of a unique spin.

Sounds like it could be done as a warlock pact. Definitely wouldn't need it's own class.

[Bob_McSurly]

So many things I want!
A) Planar half-casters. So, if I'm a warrior getting magic power from the upper planes, I'm a paladin, right? But what about a warrior getting magic power from the Feywild? Or Mechanus? Or the the lower planes? Paladin doesn't seem very thematic to me in those cases, so I think it would be awesome if every major plane got an associated half-caster.
B) Swashbuckler. Yes, I know it's a rogue subclass, but I feel like the difference between 'challenges you to a duel' and 'sneaks up behind you and stabs you' is different enough that we could have gotten a separate base class. Plus, it would be cool to have a martial based on Intelligence and Charisma. You could also add in Weapon Expertise (aka, double proficiency bonus), somewhere.
C) Ardent. Basically I want a 'half-caster' psionic class. Thematically, it would basically be a warrior who believes in their cause so hard, that they start developing psionic powers just based on shear force of will.
D) Archivist and Sidhe Scholar. Wizardish intelligence casters with the cleric and druid spell lists, respectively.
E) A Knight base class (with Samurai subclass). Based around some kind of 'challenge' mechanic, were if you use one of your challenges on an enemy, you get bonuses for fighting that specific person, and they get penalties when attacking other people.
F) Some kind of short rest, spell points based, divine caster, focused entirely on Domain spells and Channel Divinity.
G) Alchemists. I kinda wish they were separate from Artificers.
H) A constitution caster. I know it might be hard to balance, but isn't that their job :-)
I) A really lucky person.

There are also some fun homebrews I've seen that it would be fun to have official, like Bowmaster, Princess, Beastkeeper and Commoner classes that are balanced with the P.C classes.

And +1 to warlord, and whoever mentioned a trap based class.

[Regitnui]

A trapmaker could go under Artificer as a subclass.

*braces self for objections*

[Rogerdodger557]

Am I the only one missing the Crusader? I know the paladin occupies the same niche thematically, but there's just something about a class that is as holy as the paladin but accomplishes the will of the Divine by hitting things really, really, hard.

They are releasing the Zealot Barbarian. Is that close to what you want?


If those two design failure of classes actually make it in 5e, we might as well get Lore Master and 500 prestige classes, and get it over with -_-

I'm really disapointed. :(

Psionics have part of D&D forever. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they won't do it. As for the Artificer, yeah, it could use some improvements. Ideally, pumping it up to a half-caster. Other than that, I don't have an issue with it. The artificer is the mad scientist, wreaking havoc on the world. You may not like them, but these two classes fill a niche that hasn't been covered by official material. Get over it.

P.S. Lore Master will never see an official release, and prestige classes aren't a thing anymore, considering they just made them subclasses instead. Eldritch Knight and Draconic sorcerer were both prestige classes in 3.5.

[Arkhios]

Lore Master will never see an official release

Never say never, tbh. While I'm aware that the War Magic tradition absorbed some of the Lore Master's features, Lore Master might still be released at some later point with quite a few neccessary tweaks.

[Rogerdodger557]

Never say never, tbh. While I'm aware that the War Magic tradition absorbed some of the Lore Master's features, Lore Master might still be released at some later point with quite a few neccessary tweaks.

I know the War Magic gobbled up part of Lore Master, but still...

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/894976363269992448?lang=en

[Dudewithknives]

I know the War Magic gobbled up part of Lore Master, but still...

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/894976363269992448?lang=en

What I find odd is that it was the mile long casting range that tipped them off, but the at will change any element to any other element including force, seemed ok to them.

Mile range casting, hell no.
Completely ignore the mechanic of resistance and have any element they are vulnerable to at hand at all times. Yeah ok.

[Arkhios]

I know the War Magic gobbled up part of Lore Master, but still...

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/894976363269992448?lang=en

I mean, yeah, I can see that's their current opinion about it. But seriously, they might try again at later point, either because they forgot they said it's gone for good, or because they got a better idea how to do it.


What I find odd is that it was the mile long casting range that tipped them off, but the at will change any element to any other element including force, seemed ok to them.

Mile range casting, hell no.
Completely ignore the mechanic of resistance and have any element they are vulnerable to at hand at all times. Yeah ok.

Energy Substitution is pretty old concept in D&D, so that's probably why they felt it was ok (As early as in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana there was this Evocation Specialist Variant that could do that a few times per day, and the 3.5 Lore Master prestige class could do it too; however, IIRC, the mile range casting didn't appear in the original version); in fact, I kinda hope that feature is one of those the War Mage took as its own.

[Waterdeep Merch]

A trapmaker could go under Artificer as a subclass.

*braces self for objections*
I'm not entirely against it. While I'd like a non-magical ambush-style trapmaker, it's probably too mechanically complex to work with the system as designed. Utilizing magic and attaching it to the imbuement ability might be a more elegant way of accomplishing it in a playable form. Though I also feel it'd be either fairly weak (requires DM fiat to manage any of your own features) or completely OP (strong debuffs revolving around catch 22 scenarios). A problem even a pure class would likely have.

[ImperiousLeader]

So, I've been looking at Tome of Battle, and the Monk from 13 True Ways and wondering, if WoTC were to build something like that, a martial maneuver system that's more in depth than the Battle Master's maneuvers, would that require a new class, or just new subclasses for the warrior classes to access it? I'm inclined to think that subclasses are the way to go, but I could see a new class instead.

My general view is that a new class has to do something that can't be done with existing classes, new subclasses or multiclassing, so I don't see a lot of additional space, unless we're talking about different magical systems (like Incarnum, Psionics, etc.). I do see a pet or minion focused class, aka a Summoner. But looking around ... Pathfinder seems to just have increasing arrays of hybrid classes, other RPGs aren't so focused on classes ... what else is missing in DnD?


As for the Artificer, yeah, it could use some improvements. Ideally, pumping it up to a half-caster. Other than that, I don't have an issue with it. The artificer is the mad scientist, wreaking havoc on the world.

Honestly, I see Artificers as full casters. If Bards can make the jump from only 6th level spells in 3.5, I think Artificers should join them. The current Artificer feels like a Rogue with a side of casting, which is interesting, but doesn't fit the flavour of the Eberron Artificers I've played, which, to me, is essential for an Artificer.

[Waffle_Iron]

The long lost prophesied arcane Int based half caster martial that would bring on a new age of Dungeoning and Dragoning.

Fighter 11 (EK) / Wizard 9 (War Mage) ?

[Bob_McSurly]

Fighter 11 (EK) / Wizard 9 (War Mage) ?

Why do you continue to dash our dreams against the rocks with multi-classing :)

[Bob_McSurly]

I'm not entirely against it. While I'd like a non-magical ambush-style trapmaker, it's probably too mechanically complex to work with the system as designed. Utilizing magic and attaching it to the imbuement ability might be a more elegant way of accomplishing it in a playable form. Though I also feel it'd be either fairly weak (requires DM fiat to manage any of your own features) or completely OP (strong debuffs revolving around catch 22 scenarios). A problem even a pure class would likely have.
Yeah, a "mundane mechanic" kind of character seems like a fairly unique archetype.

[Asmotherion]

They are releasing the Zealot Barbarian. Is that close to what you want?



Psionics have part of D&D forever. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they won't do it. As for the Artificer, yeah, it could use some improvements. Ideally, pumping it up to a half-caster. Other than that, I don't have an issue with it. The artificer is the mad scientist, wreaking havoc on the world. You may not like them, but these two classes fill a niche that hasn't been covered by official material. Get over it.

P.S. Lore Master will never see an official release, and prestige classes aren't a thing anymore, considering they just made them subclasses instead. Eldritch Knight and Draconic sorcerer were both prestige classes in 3.5.

I'm not suggesting they should not do it, rather that they should do it in otherwise; it would be greater to have Psionic subclasses for each class rather than a single Psionic class... in my oppinion it feels grotesque. It would also be better to be released in a campain specific book (Dark Sun for example would be perfect for it).

Same goes for Artificer, were their first attempt was a lot better in my oppoinion, and then they had to destroy it by making it a ceparate class from Wizard. It was such a big disapointment for me honestly. :(

[8wGremlin]

I'm not suggesting they should not do it, rather that they should do it in otherwise; it would be greater to have Psionic subclasses for each class rather than a single Psionic class... in my oppinion it feels grotesque. It would also be better to be released in a campain specific book (Dark Sun for example would be perfect for it).

Same goes for Artificer, were their first attempt was a lot better in my oppoinion, and then they had to destroy it by making it a ceparate class from Wizard. It was such a big disapointment for me honestly. :(

Funny, I'm the exact opposite on both these points of view.

I think that Mystic in it's current form is good, yes it needs some major balance tweaks.
And Making Artificer a wizard subclass is so wrong to the original feel.
Artificers were above the arcane/divine/nature split, they could create magic items both temporary and perm, including constructs.

Both of these were a breath of fresh air in the stagnant pool that was generic sword coast d&d at the time.

But that's one of the things I like about D&D, your game and my game can exist at the same time, if you don't like something, don't allow it. it's all good.

[druid91]

An Artificer built around artificing crazy inventions rather than having a gun or alchemy.

[Regitnui]

I'm not entirely against it. While I'd like a non-magical ambush-style trapmaker, it's probably too mechanically complex to work with the system as designed. Utilizing magic and attaching it to the imbuement ability might be a more elegant way of accomplishing it in a playable form. Though I also feel it'd be either fairly weak (requires DM fiat to manage any of your own features) or completely OP (strong debuffs revolving around catch 22 scenarios). A problem even a pure class would likely have.

Imagine a subclass that sends off temporary constructs that 'deploy' into traps, or one that throws 'rune grenades' that make an area difficult terrain or create a booming blade area that penalises enemies for moving. Ideally getting the wall of spells as options.

[RickAllison]

I like the idea of trying to keep everything more in subclasses and multiclassing, but that idea doesn't work out so well in practice. Subclasses are great for introducing some mechanics that put the class into new light, but they hold much of the same limitations as the base class. Multiclassing doesn't work so well because most "solutions" in that regard don't pay out until much higher levels. Like the Int half-caster? You are probably looking at 5 levels of just being an EK and you aren't to half-caster power until level 7, and your power is still shoehorned into a very specific build.

In an ideal system, the class/subclass would be more modular. I think that Alternate Class Features (like with Revised Ranger going forward) could be a useful concept for this. Prime targets for this could be short rest/long rest casting, Sneak Attack with something that doesn't pigeonhole you into tiny and poky weapons, and Rage or Divine Smite with something that will allow for archers. ACFs may add complexity to building a character, but the ability to replace those abilities that restrict what builds are viable with other would go a long way to allowing the existing classes to work with more varied subclasses.

[druid91]

Imagine a subclass that sends off temporary constructs that 'deploy' into traps, or one that throws 'rune grenades' that make an area difficult terrain or create a booming blade area that penalises enemies for moving. Ideally getting the wall of spells as options.

There was the Combat Trapsmith from 3.5, though it was a prestige class.

More or less they made tripwire traps, or pressure plates, or whatever. They required a trap kit that cost 100 gold for a basic kit, and 500 for an advanced kit.

They were fairly low OP during 3.5 but they were a fun class nonetheless.

[Dudewithknives]

I mean, yeah, I can see that's their current opinion about it. But seriously, they might try again at later point, either because they forgot they said it's gone for good, or because they got a better idea how to do it.



Energy Substitution is pretty old concept in D&D, so that's probably why they felt it was ok (As early as in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana there was this Evocation Specialist Variant that could do that a few times per day, and the 3.5 Lore Master prestige class could do it too; however, IIRC, the mile range casting didn't appear in the original version); in fact, I kinda hope that feature is one of those the War Mage took as its own.

In a system where resistance and immunity are the only real form of damage reduction, and just about every enemy past the early levels has resistance to at least 1 form of damage or another the entire ability to ignore every creature in the game's resistances and immunities with every spell that you ever cast, but keeping their side benefits like stopping reactions, slowed movement or whatever, completely for free, with unlimited uses, starting at level 2 was what I found overpowered, the mile long casting range I thought was kind of Meh considering how very few times you would ever actually get to use and, and you would still need to be able to see the target from a mile away.

[Arkhios]

There was the Combat Trapsmith from 3.5, though it was a prestige class.

More or less they made tripwire traps, or pressure plates, or whatever. They required a trap kit that cost 100 gold for a basic kit, and 500 for an advanced kit.

They were fairly low OP during 3.5 but they were a fun class nonetheless.

See, that's just it, though. The design philosophy 5th edition has all but abandoned the idea of adding prestige classes, and instead make former prestigeclass concepts as sub-classes for thematically appropriate classes. Combat Trapsmith, for example, would make most sense as either a rogue or maybe an artificer sub-class.

[Honest Tiefling]

See, that's just it, though. The design philosophy 5th edition has all but abandoned the idea of adding prestige classes, and instead make former prestigeclass concepts as sub-classes for thematically appropriate classes. Combat Trapsmith, for example, would make most sense as either a rogue or maybe an artificer sub-class.

I dunno. Maybe it is the whole connection to the wilderness, but I could see it as a ranger subclass thematically speaking. It might not work so hot mechanically, but a tiefling can dream.

[Dudewithknives]

See, that's just it, though. The design philosophy 5th edition has all but abandoned the idea of adding prestige classes, and instead make former prestigeclass concepts as sub-classes for thematically appropriate classes. Combat Trapsmith, for example, would make most sense as either a rogue or maybe an artificer sub-class.

I am fine with the lore wizard, big fan of it as a matter of fact, but the ability to change an element for free, with no limit on uses is too much.

Step 1: Be Lore Wizard level 2.
Step 2: Change every spell in the game to the damage type Force.
Step 3: Ignore the stat block of every monster ever, and cast any spell you want and never worry about it.

If that is the case I want my Occult Slayer and my Forsaker.

[Regitnui]

See, that's just it, though. The design philosophy 5th edition has all but abandoned the idea of adding prestige classes, and instead make former prestigeclass concepts as sub-classes for thematically appropriate classes. Combat Trapsmith, for example, would make most sense as either a rogue or maybe an artificer sub-class.

Precisely what I'm suggesting. Alongside wandsmith, alchemist and golemist (servant-focused), the Trapmaster could be a great "indirect skirmisher"; moving around the outside of the combat to channel or trap enemies towards the fighter or herd them into a group for the wizard's crowd control.

[alchahest]

The interesting thing is that in the playtesting for fifth, Fighters had superiority dice (and stances, if I recall correctly) as a part of the base class, and people liked them. except for a very vocal minority who wanted fighters to "play dumb" and be more like the fighters of AD&D, where the only real thing they got was more attacks per turn due to what that edition's weapon specialising was.

of course since those days all other classes have expanded and added more types of gameplay, and the fighters became the "well let's just make this the most mundane thing but give them more mundanity to compensate". until 4th edition, where they had a very real role and mechanics to support it. they were tough, did good damage, and actually had a mechanical way to keep the softer characters from being attacked by monsters just rushing around the fighter.

and in fifth, we're back to fighters just getting more mundanity as a "Role". the base class is really good at having lots of opportunities to just hit things. and thier main bonuses? Surging to do that even more, and having more ASIs so they can have slightly more of the thing everyone gets, attribute increases (or feats, if you are playing with them).

Because they get SO MUCH mundanity, the different subclasses are pretty milktoast. EK has some magic but it's very limited in how and when you can use it, and how much of it you can use. Usually it's just the SCAG cantrips and saving spell slots for Shield spells. BAttlemaster has a very limited number of maneuvers that don't scale as you do, outside of changing die sizes (compare to cantrips, which don't have a resource cost and scale in number of dice instead), and the champion is just more of that mundanity. now it gets to add a few more numbers to things it's not trained in, and does an additional die of damage 5% of the time over non champions.

Fighter, I think would have been better if the base class got 2 attacks, but came with battlemaster maneuvers. Champion would get up to four attacks, an initiative bonus equal to proficiency, and expertise in athletics or acrobatics (your choice). EK would look similar but have some sort of built in magic on it's regular attacks.

battlemaster could be replaced by warlord, who expands upon the maneuvers all fighters get with things similar to warlord from 4e.

[Arkhios]

I dunno. Maybe it is the whole connection to the wilderness, but I could see it as a ranger subclass thematically speaking. It might not work so hot mechanically, but a tiefling can dream.
Ranger could be quite fitting, too, though I agree it might not be that perfect mechanically.


I am fine with the lore wizard, big fan of it as a matter of fact, but the ability to change an element for free, with no limit on uses is too much.

Step 1: Be Lore Wizard level 2.
Step 2: Change every spell in the game to the damage type Force.
Step 3: Ignore the stat block of every monster ever, and cast any spell you want and never worry about it.

If that is the case I want my Occult Slayer and my Forsaker.
Does it have to be so black and white - "either or", though? I mean, I wouldn't mind if it was limited like the War cleric's bonus attack (X uses per long rest, where X is your Int modifier), or sorcery points (X points to be used, where X is your wizard level). If it would at least exist, I'd be happy. I do agree though, that being able to change the damage type to Force is a bit too strong. Just limit the energy types to the five most typical energies: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, and Thunder.


Precisely what I'm suggesting. Alongside wandsmith, alchemist and golemist (servant-focused), the Trapmaster could be a great "indirect skirmisher"; moving around the outside of the combat to channel or trap enemies towards the fighter or herd them into a group for the wizard's crowd control.
Yeah, I can see how that would be very interesting and fun way to play the game.

[Honest Tiefling]

Curious, what were the stances like?

I in some ways do like the fact that the Champion exists because its effective and simple and sometimes you get a player who wants that. It's nice to have a subclass you can hand to a newer player and have them be effective during combat quite easily. Having the other sub-classes be married to that philosophy is a less fun.

[alchahest]

Curious, what were the stances like?

I in some ways do like the fact that the Champion exists because its effective and simple and sometimes you get a player who wants that. It's nice to have a subclass you can hand to a newer player and have them be effective during combat quite easily. Having the other sub-classes be married to that philosophy is a less fun.

I am pretty sure one of the stances is basically what the tunnel fighter fighting style is now, it has been quite a while and honestly when they took the feedback that people liked where fighter was going then threw it out to make them boring "easy to use" I sort of tuned it out for a while.

it's pretty patronising to have a class you give to people you don't think will understand the complexities of "picking a from a list" and "making mechanically supported choices"

[Regitnui]

Yeah, I can see how that would be very interesting and fun way to play the game.

It's most certainly something the other classes don't cover. My mental image of the base artificer is basically "magic item McGuyver". They can make any magic item temporarily (spell list full of support and minor attack), they have a mechanical servant on the level of a dog, like a psuedo-golem or homunculus, and they can disable traps and identify items. The subclasses then build on this:
Wandsmith has a "shotgun staff" that's unstable but effective and only they can use it without blowing their own arms off.
Alchemist has a bandolier of glass bottles and odd ingredients they shove together and make "potions".
"Golemist" buffs their homunculus until it does the fighting for them while they ride or command it.
"Trapmaster" gets higher defense and runs around the encounter setting up magical mines that slow down or outright kill enemies.

[Dudewithknives]

Ranger could be quite fitting, too, though I agree it might not be that perfect mechanically.


Does it have to be so black and white - "either or", though? I mean, I wouldn't mind if it was limited like the War cleric's bonus attack (X uses per long rest, where X is your Int modifier), or sorcery points (X points to be used, where X is your wizard level). If it would at least exist, I'd be happy. I do agree though, that being able to change the damage type to Force is a bit too strong. Just limit the energy types to the five most typical energies: Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, and Thunder.


Yeah, I can see how that would be very interesting and fun way to play the game.

I would be fine with change to any of the basic elements: fire, cold, lightning, acid or thunder, but to do so you have to burn an additional spell slot of 1 level lower.

Ex: want to cast a fire ball against that red dragon that does cold damage, ok, spend a level 3 and a level 2 slot.

It should be the emergency button not the base tactic

Or I could see it costing you 1hd of damage as you messing with the weave of magic back lashes.

[Telwar]

I would be fine with change to any of the basic elements: fire, cold, lightning, acid or thunder, but to do so you have to burn an additional spell slot of 1 level lower.

Ex: want to cast a fire ball against that red dragon that does cold damage, ok, spend a level 3 and a level 2 slot.

It should be the emergency button not the base tactic

Or I could see it costing you 1hd of damage as you messing with the weave of magic back lashes.

So basically a real cost.

Fatigue too brutal, you think?

[MinimanMidget]

How has no-one mentioned the Lore Master changing the saving throws of their spells? Even 1/rest, it's still even more powerful than changing the damage type. "My save-or-suck spells work off your weakest stat! Balance!"

[alchahest]

Well you could just pick no-save spells like Tasha's hideous Laughter. if you think 1/rest targeting a different save is bad, then try playing with a bard sometime.

[toapat]

I want to see an actual Beastmaster class, that can focus on a single companion and be awesome that way, or Tarzan Horde of Battlesheep.


Or am I rambling here?

yes, Incarnum + binding were used to create 5E Psionics.


Seriously though, what offends people so much in 5e that they keep calling for "5.5" rule patch? Isn't this the most balanced edition ever? Wasn't there like three years of playtesting with actual unbiased players before WotC even started commissioning artists for the Starter Kit? Haven't we seen almost everything in XGtE because WotC wanted to double check subclass concepts in UA at least once before they made them official?

Personally, I'm starting to write off people who demand 5.5 as novelty-seekers who want a new system because 5e isn't to their exact tastes. As in "I don't like this aspect of 5e so we need to throw out Core and start all over again to make 5.5e". You do know that there'll be something that doesn't agree with you in 5.5e as well, right? Even in 6e if you're on the design team and given full creative control. I'm sure there's things that individual employees of WotC dislike in the game, but they put them in because someone else does. There's an employee in WotC who thinks tiefling warlocks are immature, and another who thinks that flanking rules are a relic of D&D's wargaming roots.

5th edition is numerically balanced by majority, but the problem comes from a small number of Sacred Cattle that have spoiled the mixture just enough to sour the Edition.

Paladins and Warlocks are the only well designed classes, while Ranger and Monk are so burdened with inherent sacred cows that they are crippled from a design point of view, as the ranger soaks concepts from other classes and negates the possibility to create a Beastmaster Class, where as Monk probably should have been built like warlock, having Kung Fu, Reason for Learning Kung-Fu, and special maneuvers of their kung fu. Then theres Fighter which should have the champion subclass killed, lose its improved critical range so barbarian can eat that, and get rebuilt closer to the Warblade

Spell Schools do some massive damage to class design when compared to what a tagging system could do. For instance, why as a Pheonix Sorcerer can i not learn Flamestrike or Flame Blade? Im literally playing a character about abusing fire in every myriad way i can imagine.

Like, this isnt a "I hate 5E", im trying to be objective and look at problems from a core design assumption. I do despise that Redemption paladin was greenlit despite needing to die in a fire and be separated into something that isnt trying to make every part of paladin extremely strong at the same time.


Am I the only one missing the Crusader? I know the paladin occupies the same niche thematically, but there's just something about a class that is as holy as the paladin but accomplishes the will of the Divine by hitting things really, really, hard.

Paladins do hit things really really hard. just not perpetually since in 5E that would be busted. In fact they hit things so hard that people forget there are supposed to be rounds of combat that paladins dont get to hit things like a Deorbiting Freight Train.


Sounds like it could be done as a warlock pact. Definitely wouldn't need it's own class.

Binder's fluff and general Stchik was given to Warlock as patrons. Mechanically it was then fused with Incarnum to create Psionics for the Mystic


So, I've been looking at Tome of Battle, and the Monk from 13 True Ways and wondering, if WoTC were to build something like that, a martial maneuver system that's more in depth than the Battle Master's maneuvers, would that require a new class, or just new subclasses for the warrior classes to access it? I'm inclined to think that subclasses are the way to go, but I could see a new class instead.

New class.

[Dudewithknives]

So basically a real cost.

Fatigue too brutal, you think?

With so few way to get rid of it, yes fatigue should never be linked to class abilities.

[Arkhios]

With so few way to get rid of it, yes fatigue should never be linked to class abilities.

Exhaustion could be, though. It even has precedency in Frenzy (Berserker barbarian)

[Rogerdodger557]

I'm not suggesting they should not do it, rather that they should do it in otherwise; it would be greater to have Psionic subclasses for each class rather than a single Psionic class... in my oppinion it feels grotesque. It would also be better to be released in a campain specific book (Dark Sun for example would be perfect for it).

Same goes for Artificer, were their first attempt was a lot better in my oppoinion, and then they had to destroy it by making it a ceparate class from Wizard. It was such a big disapointment for me honestly. :(

Why on earth would the different classes all get a psionic subclass? That make no sense at all. It's the equivalent of giving every class a subclass with battle maneuvers, and we all know that was poorly implemented. it would not be greater, or better. This is grotesque.

And the artificer wizard subclass doesn't make sense with the fact that forge cleric is getting released, and their level 1 ability is basically the same as the wizard artificer's level 6 ability. I'm not sorry that they moved it away from wizards, the Artificer class is stronger for it, because they can actually do what they should be doing. Weird, wacky science like making guns, advanced alchemy, and making robots to ride around on.

Finally, I'm just gonna say what some people don't want to hear. WotC more than likely will not release a book on Dark Sun, or Eberron, in the foreseeable future. The closest thing to Dark Suns we'll probably ever get is Mike Mearls' Dark Sun setting, which might only get as Unearthed Arcana. Eberron has already been released in Unearthed Arcana. Deal with it.

[Arkhios]

The closest thing to Dark Suns we'll probably ever get is Mike Mearls' Dark Sun setting, which might only get as Unearthed Arcana. Eberron has already been released in Unearthed Arcana. Deal with it.

Personally I would be happy with just UA guidelines for Dark Sun. However, the Eberron UA was "incomplete" so I'd rather see a revisited UA for it. (It didn't include kalashtar, dammit!)

[Albions_Angel]

A few more Barbarian types, including Rune Scribed and Frenzied I think. A mildly magical barbarian and a Hulk would nicely round out that class.

I have been toying with making a homebrew class with a few archetypes that plug some (IMO) Gish holes in the current roster.

The overarching class would be the Spellsword, and would be somewhere between a sorc and a cleric. Medium armor prof, simple weapons, that sort of thing. Keep something like sorc points but your metamagic doesnt kick in until your archetype. Some blasty cantrips and spells as standard.

The archetypes would be something like the following:

Battle Sorcerer : Gain shield prof, buffs to defensive and enhancement spells, metamagic to extend and share spells with sorc points, a little bit of divination. The idea is to walk into a situation prepared with long lasting magical defenses and spells to buff your physical attributes.

Warmage : Gain Martial Weapon Prof, no disadvantage to casting in combat, buff to blasting spells, spend sorc points to apply knockback, prone, only target enemies, etc. Your traditional fantasy stab-and-blast.

Duskblade : Gain Martial Weapon Prof and Heavy Armor Prof, gain extra attack at 5th. Spells are limited. can store a touch spell on a weapon, deliver touch spell through weapon, keep spell for iterative attacks at higher levels. Its the duskblade. What more do you want?

Maybe then also include:

Dread Necromancer : Reduce to Light Armor, gain permanent undead pet that scales with you, gain enhancements on undead summons with sorc points.

Truenamer (in name only) : Battlefield control. Dont expand spell list, instead gain utterances that "change the phsyical world itself". At low levels, thats creating difficult terrain, summoning walls and such, blocking line of sight. Med levels its wider reaching entangles, areas that will knock prone, areas that give high ground. At high levels, slow time, massive changes to terrain, weather control.

Something like that? Would like to see all those roles properly filled.

[Felyndiira]

I would love for them to make a Tome of Battle class, as a modular and complex martial much like how Mystic is designed as a modular and complex castersupernatural class. I feel 5e martials are generally too same-y and simple, and there should be a better way to add complexity and options for players that want them than just spell slots.

My vision would be something like this:


D10 Hit Die
Proficient in Medium Armor, Martial Weapons
Subclasses to cover general archetypes, like armored warrior (+Heavy Proficiency, some defensive bonuses), skirmisher (+speed, +some damage), or swordsage (supernatural bonuses).
No extra attack despite being a martial class.
Implement maneuvers as "styles". Give the class 1 style of their choice within their order, plus 3-4 more over their career.
Styles are like disciplines, but longer and with more options following a style of play to compensate for getting less of them. Some styles might use combos, or be based around zooming the field in a bolt of lightning, etc.
Most abilities in a style are at-will, while some more powerful ones might have limits (per short rest, cooldown, etc.)
Good choices for the bonus action and reaction.
The class will thus be based on using standard-action maneuvers to deal damage and affect the battlefield, much like the original ToB - just with more structure rather than choosing from very loose lists.


Basically, like the martial version of a mystic, with similar modularity and choices, just more concentrated in mixing a few chosen themes.

Also, I think the Fighter is fine. It's okay to have a simple bash heads class for people who just wants to bash heads. As long as we have options to make more interesting and dynamic characters (like the initiator I described above), having a more static and boring class should not be a problem.

[Bob_McSurly]

Another concept I'd like to see are "magical artists". Like, a bard is basically a singer/poet/orator who is so awesome they're magic, but I think it would be fun to have "magic painter", "magic sculptor", or "magic dancer" classes.

[SaurOps]

Why on earth would the different classes all get a psionic subclass? That make no sense at all. It's the equivalent of giving every class a subclass with battle maneuvers, and we all know that was poorly implemented. it would not be greater, or better. This is grotesque.

Well, aside from the fact that it's how 5e kind of rolls giving magical powers out, it has a precedent in other editions, with things like lurks and psychic warriors. Since there was a large quantity of psionic classes in prior material, it stands to reason that there would either be a lot of psionic classes other than the mystic, or the mystic, and a large number of psionic subclasses.



And the artificer wizard subclass doesn't make sense with the fact that forge cleric is getting released, and their level 1 ability is basically the same as the wizard artificer's level 6 ability. I'm not sorry that they moved it away from wizards, the Artificer class is stronger for it, because they can actually do what they should be doing. Weird, wacky science like making guns, advanced alchemy, and making robots to ride around on.

5e clerics aren't just a mistake; the concept of divine domains doing anything but providing miniature, a-la-cart spell lists is a giant mistake. No surprise that CoDzilla is showing up again with 5e Divine Domains.



Finally, I'm just gonna say what some people don't want to hear. WotC more than likely will not release a book on Dark Sun, or Eberron, in the foreseeable future. The closest thing to Dark Suns we'll probably ever get is Mike Mearls' Dark Sun setting, which might only get as Unearthed Arcana. Eberron has already been released in Unearthed Arcana. Deal with it.

They'd make someone angry no matter which decisions they made on a 5e DS, honestly.

[Deleted]

I would love for them to make a Tome of Battle class, as a modular and complex martial much like how Mystic is designed as a modular and complex castersupernatural class. I feel 5e martials are generally too same-y and simple, and there should be a better way to add complexity and options for players that want them than just spell slots.

My vision would be something like this:


D10 Hit Die
Proficient in Medium Armor, Martial Weapons
Subclasses to cover general archetypes, like armored warrior (+Heavy Proficiency, some defensive bonuses), skirmisher (+speed, +some damage), or swordsage (supernatural bonuses).
No extra attack despite being a martial class.
Implement maneuvers as "styles". Give the class 1 style of their choice within their order, plus 3-4 more over their career.
Styles are like disciplines, but longer and with more options following a style of play to compensate for getting less of them. Some styles might use combos, or be based around zooming the field in a bolt of lightning, etc.
Most abilities in a style are at-will, while some more powerful ones might have limits (per short rest, cooldown, etc.)
Good choices for the bonus action and reaction.
The class will thus be based on using standard-action maneuvers to deal damage and affect the battlefield, much like the original ToB - just with more structure rather than choosing from very loose lists.


Basically, like the martial version of a mystic, with similar modularity and choices, just more concentrated in mixing a few chosen themes.

Also, I think the Fighter is fine. It's okay to have a simple bash heads class for people who just wants to bash heads. As long as we have options to make more interesting and dynamic characters (like the initiator I described above), having a more static and boring class should not be a problem.

I think if you took the Fighter's base but give it one (extra) attack and focus maneuvers around reaction abilities... You can make a good "Tome of Battle" 5e type class.

I wasn't going Tome of Battle with my Reactive Fighter but I could see it working.

The problem with the current Fighter isn't that it's simple, the issue is that it has nothing else but simple. In 4e you have a very simple Fighter but it has class features (combat superiority for example) that makes it amazing (stopping things from moving is amazing).