What Archetype gaps are there?

[Kadesh]

What would you like to see from the next dump of character options?

For me: A Drought and an Oceanic Cleric - where one brings about the destruction of crops and uses Insect, Blight, Sickening Radiance etc, Dust and Wind based abilities, rather than a basic desert = fire theme, while the other uses water theme spells more than they use lightning and thunder.

More Ki Elemental Spells for a 4E Monk. A monk with the ability to use Bones of the Earth to punch a dude into the sky, then run up the pillars the next turn and punch him off, using his slow fall to land next to him and punch an enemies lights in is right up my street.

A Princes of the Apocalypse Style Warlock set of Patrons.

A Lancer style character whose entire style of fighting is by jumping up and landing on an enemy and shoving a spear or lance deep in their throats.

A Hoplite Style Fighter, similar to a Battlemaster, emphasising the use of Formations as a passive benefit rather than it having to be a dedicated effect.

An Insect or Worm specific Druid, able to replace Elemental Form with even more improved Giant Insects or Swarm Forms, and/or Monstrosities like the Remorhaz or Purple Worm.

What would you like to see?

[Foxhound438]

I'd like to see an officially released alchemist class, especially one that actually has an 11th level feature

maybe a fighter or rogue that has some amount of throwing stuff theme in its features

[Fredaintdead]

I'd like to see different interpretations of "pet"-based archetypes. Like, a Barbarian with an animal companion that works a bit differently from the Ranger. Maybe a Cleric domain that gets access to it too, but again, with enough difference so as not to just be "Beast Conclave 2: Electric Boogaloo".

[JakOfAllTirades]

We need a Master Thrower, either as a Fighter or Rogue archetype.

[Treantmonk]

Bard: - Juggler expert thrower
Cleric: - We have a C'thulu themed Warlock, what about a C'thulu themed cleric?
Warlock: - Someone mentioned elemental themes - yes please
Rogue: - We have swashbuckler, but I would love Pirate

[Tetrasodium]

The artificer... a real one too, not those wtf lantan inspired ones.

I can't wait

[ZenBear]

I like the pestilential Cleric you hinted at OP. Full on biblical plagues, Cleric of a wrathful god.

I would also like to see a Cleric Rogue subclass, Van Helsing style.

I would like to see gestalt become officially supported.

[Slybluedemon]

I would like to see some more stuff for the Barbarian.

An archetype that makes your rage into a focus or tranquility. Make it more of a commander type

[Naanomi]

Lots of room for more Warlock patrons... elemental/genie, nature/shamanistic spirits... more Pact Boons as well; a curse focused voodoo doll/fetish; or a social/intimidation focused tiki mask?

[stoutstien]

Half arcane caster, preferably artificer

[Dragonkingofth]

I think the blood hunter concept might be something to look at, a half caster ala paladin only useing the warlock spell slot system rather then the traditional spell splots

[ZorroGames]

Fine with the current ones.

[KillingTime]

A half arcane caster and a half warlock caster are both good ideas.
In fact any other Int based character other than the wizard would be nice.

[ZorroGames]

A half arcane caster and a half warlock caster are both good ideas.
In fact any other Int based character other than the wizard would be nice.

Okay I think the last has much merit.

[Inchoroi]

My two pet ideas are:

Artificer
Psionic
Summoner

I've been toying with a Summoner archetype for Druid, but haven't gotten it to where I'm happy with it yet. And psionics just because I like psionics, and its weird, which amuses me.

[Lunali]

I would like to see some more stuff for the Barbarian.

An archetype that makes your rage into a focus or tranquility. Make it more of a commander type

You can do this already, as long as it interferes with casting/concentration there's no reason you couldn't describe it differently. The focus involved could be too much to allow simultaneously releasing spellcasting formulae, tranquility could require emptying your mind to the point where you can't cast.

[mephnick]

I guess it depends on how generous you are with the term "archetype". I think 5e has covered all the fantasy archetypes it needs to and then some.

I'm not sure I consider "Oceanic Cleric" or "Blood Hunter" to be things I think about when I think of fantasy literature or media. You shouldn't just throw crap at the wall you think would be cool without any kind of basis in fantasy. That's how you end up with Pathfinder's hodgepodge of 800 meaningless classes.

Alchemist is pretty much the only thing I would consider a true fantasy archetype that's left. Possibly Psionic, but that's mostly for D&D tradition, not any type of fantasy tradition.

[Asmotherion]

Bard: - Juggler expert thrower
Cleric: - We have a C'thulu themed Warlock, what about a C'thulu themed cleric?
Warlock: - Someone mentioned elemental themes - yes please
Rogue: - We have swashbuckler, but I would love Pirate

Isn't the Knowlage Cleric kinda Cthulhu-themed? He does get Knowlage he didn't have by praying to his God, Reads peoples thoughts, and can Mind-Control people through his Channel Divinity among other stuff. Or is it just me that sees it that way?

[Mortis_Elrod]

a Demonic Barbarian, let me turn into a demon when a rage.

a blighter/walker in the waste/anti-druid Druid. Sure pestilence domain would be nice on the cleric but bring back the desiccation! Blight fire! undead wildshape!, Deforestation! Cleric already has so much give druids some more love.

A decent Necrotic/Curse warlock patron. make sure i get Contagion, Insect plague, Blight, bane, all those Curse/disease spells. I don't even want animate dead if it gets in the way, just give me maximum curse options, that ISN'T hex. Hex is lame. its like bad luck.


Dragon patron. I pledge my soul to Ashardalon or Io, or Falazure. Give me dragon on my warlock. There are plenty of ways to make it not like the sorcerer. Don't let that be an excuse.

Elemental patron. I think Primordial Elementals are high enough on the totem pole to warrant being a patron. gimme.

Elemental Druid. i'm looking for a more castery wild shape consuming elemental themed option for THE elemental class. Why are sorcerers and clerics commanding more elements than my druid buddy? who gave the wizard rights to all the cool spells? Give it back to the Circle of elements!!!

[Kadesh]

I guess it depends on how generous you are with the term "archetype". I think 5e has covered all the fantasy archetypes it needs to and then some.

I'm not sure I consider "Oceanic Cleric" or "Blood Hunter" to be things I think about when I think of fantasy literature or media. You shouldn't just throw crap at the wall you think would be cool without any kind of basis in fantasy. That's how you end up with Pathfinder's hodgepodge of 800 meaningless classes.

Alchemist is pretty much the only thing I would consider a true fantasy archetype that's left. Possibly Psionic, but that's mostly for D&D tradition, not any type of fantasy tradition.

I think you're misinterpreting what Archetype I mean. The class variants, i.e, Fighter archetypes are Champion, Battle Master, etc.

Not generic fantasy archetype.

[Millstone85]

Otherworldly Patrons:
* The Binder, expanding on Chain like the Hexblade did for Blade.
* The Genie, different whether it is an efreeti, djinni, marid or dao.
* The Vestiges, plural, acting as switchable modes for the warlock.

Sacred Oaths:
* Oath of Balance, the TN-flavored one.
* Oath of Freedom, the CG-flavored one.

[Zalabim]

I like the pestilential Cleric you hinted at OP. Full on biblical plagues, Cleric of a wrathful god.
That's the role of the Tempest Domain. That's why they get Insect Plague.

For me: A Drought and an Oceanic Cleric - where one brings about the destruction of crops and uses Insect, Blight, Sickening Radiance etc, Dust and Wind based abilities, rather than a basic desert = fire theme, while the other uses water theme spells more than they use lightning and thunder.
You could probably just use the Light domain, or do like some of the planeshift articles and remix Light and Tempest domain abilities with a unique list of domain spells. More water themed spells would be needed in general for the Oceanic version, but that's a lot closer to the intended purpose of Tempest already. More or less I wanted to say you could have fun brewing something up for this with existing materials.

In that vein, I'd consider the "wrath of the sun" cleric for an unarmored defense swap. The Tempest cleric wears heavy armor because they do not fear the storm, the wind, the lightning, or the waves. That fear is the message they impose on others. So the Drought cleric would be someone that goes around with no fear of exposure. The sunburn kind, not some other kind. But that's just me. Heavy armor is also normally really bad in extreme heat.

A half arcane caster and a half warlock caster are both good ideas.
In fact any other Int based character other than the wizard would be nice.
How about an Int based (or secondary) character other than a magic-user? There's a wealth of subtypes that lean on Charisma, plenty that like Wisdom, plus the entire Monk class, but absolutely nothing that "uses its Intelligence in combat," except to empower magic.

[ciarannihill]

I've been working on (too much) homebrew for a lot of gaps I see, personally:

An animal companion Barbarian (and Druid for that matter) is something I'd like to see, a performance based melee character that's a non-caster aka Fighter, an Int based healer (Wizard or otherwise), I'd like a Warlock pact to do with being possessed by the patron, a Druid that takes advantage of Wild Shape in a way that isn't Moon Druid's way...

Working on a Bard based on writing and rhetoric as opposed to song and performance, a Monk based on the classic "animal inspired" kung-fu forms (Mantis, Monkey, Tiger, etc), a throwing weapon based Rogue, a Paladin who cares about knowledge and it's preservation/availability to the masses...

Working on a Ranger based around very early Chinese firearms (the tiny cannon on a stick type) and a Sorcerer based on the concept of manifesting weapons of magic to fight with, albeit this one is very conceptual at the moment.


A bunch of stuff would be nice, but one of my biggest issues is this:
A FINESSE POLEARM. Doesn't have to be martial, even if it was just the basic Spear weapon having Finesse I would be so goddamn happy.

[Spacehamster]

Demon fueled rage monster barbarian

[KillingTime]

How about an Int based (or secondary) character other than a magic-user? There's a wealth of subtypes that lean on Charisma, plenty that like Wisdom, plus the entire Monk class, but absolutely nothing that "uses its Intelligence in combat," except to empower magic.

I don't think we particularly need an Int based martial, in the same way that we don't need anything to use Str as a casting stat.
But the artificer as an Int half-caster is definitely a solid idea.
An Alchemist of some sort would also be cool.

[Kadesh]

That's the role of the Tempest Domain. That's why they get Insect Plague.

You could probably just use the Light domain, or do like some of the planeshift articles and remix Light and Tempest domain abilities with a unique list of domain spells. More water themed spells would be needed in general for the Oceanic version, but that's a lot closer to the intended purpose of Tempest already. More or less I wanted to say you could have fun brewing something up for this with existing materials.

In that vein, I'd consider the "wrath of the sun" cleric for an unarmored defense swap. The Tempest cleric wears heavy armor because they do not fear the storm, the wind, the lightning, or the waves. That fear is the message they impose on others. So the Drought cleric would be someone that goes around with no fear of exposure. The sunburn kind, not some other kind. But that's just me. Heavy armor is also normally really bad in extreme heat.

How about an Int based (or secondary) character other than a magic-user? There's a wealth of subtypes that lean on Charisma, plenty that like Wisdom, plus the entire Monk class, but absolutely nothing that "uses its Intelligence in combat," except to empower magic.

Dust Devil, Infestation, Wall of Sand, Blight Sickening Radiance, Insect Plague... Illusions for Mirages, etc... None of that feels particularly 'Light Cleric'.

I get what you're saying, but it would be nice to get some more content along those lines.

[the secret fire]

A Lancer style character whose entire style of fighting is by jumping up and landing on an enemy and shoving a spear or lance deep in their throats.

So, a video game trope? No, thanks.


I would also like to see a Cleric Rogue subclass, Van Helsing style.

Cleric/Rogue is already a lovely multi-class combination. It works great; try it. Not sure a new subclass is needed for the concepts in this space.

[Spacehamster]

So, a video game trope? No, thanks.



Cleric/Rogue is already a lovely multi-class combination. It works great; try it. Not sure a new subclass is needed for the concepts in this space.

Well a divine 1/3rd caster rogue and fighter subclass could be cool. :3

[the secret fire]

Well a divine 1/3rd caster rogue and fighter subclass could be cool. :3

I mean...bringing back the Temple Raider of Olidamarra as a 5e subclass wouldn't be the worst thing, but it's not what I'd call an archetype gap. This sort of character can already be made, and made well, by simply multiclassing Cleric from 1 to 6 levels (season to taste) and going Rogue the rest of the way.

[ZorroGames]

“An archetype is a perfect example or model of something. If you have long blonde hair, a sparkly ball gown, and a fairy godmother hovering over your head, you're the archetype of a fairytale princess.”

So it seems we use archetype rather loosely in this thread.

Looking to books and the occasional movie/TV series I tried to put character name to each D&D class. Forewarning, it has been decades since I have read very many memorable fantasy stories besides LOTR so examples lean heavily on limited sources.

Merlin has been debated since OD&D so I chose not to place him anywhere.

As a first cut, I can see archetypes for D&D as

Barbarian types as Conan or perhaps Ffhard (spelling?)

Magic Musicians (Bard) but have not read any fantasy with said archetype so no examples

(Semi)Civilized warriors using ST or DE (Fighters) such as Eomer or Boromir

Clerics serving “gods” or philosophy going blank on examples from literature

Druids serving “nature” - Alastair in the Shannara series is the only proclaimed “Druid” I have encountered.

Monks of assorted varieties such Kane (spelling?) from the TV series

Rangers using Missile (Robin Hood?) or Melee (Aragorn,) or both (Faramir)

Rogues (Grey Mouser, Shadow, Captain Blood,) of sneaky or swashbuckler types

Sorcerers (blessed and/or cursed) from ancestral choices, selection by “others” or unknown causes. No examples off the top of my head.

Warlocks empowered by volitional pacts with higher powers again drawing a blank

Wizards empowered by arcane knowledge achieved by study again no examples.

I do not see the subclasses as archetypes, YMMV. To me Samurai are a kind of Fighter archetype for example.

Of the myriad types other people salivate over I see Artificers (other than already existing types of Gnomes) as a possibility. Gunslinger perhaps in settings such as Ebberron or Renaissance Fantasy.

[WhiteWolf]

A lycanthropic barbarian subclass would be nice. Shift into an animal form whilst raging, maybe a boost to natural weapon damage, various other were-creature type abilities

[Kadesh]

So, a video game trope? No, thanks.
How's the weather up there on your high horse?

Any actual argument apart from sneering at the medium at which it was delivered?

[ZenBear]

@ZorroGames try reading the Player’s Handbook. Subclasses are called archetypes.

[Grim Portent]

Off the top of my head we have no vermin themed subclasses, only one demon/devil themed one, only one angel themed one which is really more just fire/light themed, only two necromancer ones which misses out several caster classes, there's not really anything to represent a non-magical thuggish/villainous warrior without having to multiclass. Probably more things I've wanted to build and found no satisfying mechanism to do so, but those are what came to mind immediately.

[Maelynn]

I'd like to see an officially released alchemist class, especially one that actually has an 11th level feature

Yes, like the DawnforgedCast version. I really like how that one is set up. Also, it uses Int as base stat, which is something I see others have mentioned. So that'd be hitting two birds with one class.


Dragon patron. I pledge my soul to Ashardalon or Io, or Falazure. Give me dragon on my warlock. There are plenty of ways to make it not like the sorcerer. Don't let that be an excuse.

Oh, this. I'd so make a Kobold Warlock (Koblock? Dracolock?), who believes he's a spawn of his patron and needs to prove himself in dad's eyes before he's found worthy and can follow in his footsteps. Reminds me a bit of Deekin, who slowly became a Dragon Disciple with your encouragement. Still miss that, although it has always baffled me why on Toril a Bard was able to become one. Sorc made sense, of course, but a Bard?

[ImproperJustice]

Just to chime in, because there are some good suggestions:

Second on some expansion or modification of the four elements Monk (more options, make them a 1/3rd caster, etc).

I would love to see an Urban Druid (Underdark is close) and an Urban Ranger (you can maybe get therr now with the right choices but something more focused might be nice).

I reworking of Favored Enemy to include a damage bonus and allow factions/organizations to be selectable, or allow it to be changed with Downtime.

A reworking of Primevil Awareness so that you are not worse at using it in regards to your favored enemy.
Example if favored enemy is undead.
Ranger: I use a spell slot and use Primevil Awarness.
GM: Ok. You know the Gnolls you have been tracking are somewhere within a squre mile or your position, although you don’t know how many or any rough idea of where that might be. You also know there is an Undead or possibly 1000s somewhere within six square miles of your position.
Ranger: *Dumbfounded, well I guess that was worth a spell slot......

[ProsecutorGodot]

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

Any actual argument apart from sneering at the medium at which it was delivered?

The idea of a Dragoon character who must leap and thrust their spear downwards into the enemy is lame and would look completely ridiculous, as well as already being doable without creating a nonsensical subclass in the form of picking battlemaster and narrating the following:

"I use lunging attack to increase my reach by 5ft, you see my character take a bold leap above the bugbear and slam the Spear downwards into him before kicking off his chest and landing back on the ground" Alternatively, you could narrate your attack in this way for any class or character using a spear. There's no reason to create an entire subclass for this idea because any old mook with a spear can do it.

This isn't to completely discredit the idea, but saying that the characters entire fighting style should be leaping and thrusting doesn't leave a lot of creative design space. You end up with FF4 Kain spamming Jump until the enemy has died. It really is a boring video game trope in the way that you suggested it.

As for the topic: Psionics, so my brother might actually consider playing in a game with our group(he only plays psionics), Artificer because a character class to help acquire magic items is. I personally would like a Defender type class that can actively interpose themselves in front of danger to save group members, a very defensive and control oriented class. Ancestral Barb and Redemption Paladin both get very close but all of the fun parts are reactionary and have some hefty restrictions.

[Crgaston]

Lots of good ideas here, and I’m going to be repeating a few, but

1. Swarm Druid. Shape shifting into swarms, summoning them, controlling them, etc. a la Skitter in Wildbow’s Worm web serial. A refluffed Spore Druid would be very close.

2. Fey Sorcerer. I mean, we have a Fey Paladin, Fey Warlock and Fey Bard already.

3. An official finesse spear, or Dexy spear Fighter archetype like Grey Worm or Oberyn Martel. A 1 level Monk dip makes it possible to use a Dex spear with current RAW, so it’s not OMGBroken. But then you can’t have armor or a shield, so it kinda falls short. A feat is all it would take, really.

Someone mentioned an Urban Ranger. A Gloomstalker with the Urchin background comes pretty close, but yes, that could certainly be fleshed out some more.

[ZorroGames]

@ZorroGames try reading the Player’s Handbook. Subclasses are called archetypes.How courteous an answer.

[Rebonack]

I wouldn't mind seeing a 'no spellcasting' Warlock. No Pact Magic to speak of. Eldritch Blast and Hex as class features. Boons upgraded to full-on class features that accrue power boosts as you level. New level 20 Patron-based cap-stone. Invocations for that added level of customization. A true double-archetype class would be neat.

[JackPhoenix]

@ZorroGames try reading the Player’s Handbook. Subclasses are called archetypes.

Only for fighters, rangers and rogues.

[Foxhound438]

Yes, like the DawnforgedCast version. I really like how that one is set up. Also, it uses Int as base stat, which is something I see others have mentioned. So that'd be hitting two birds with one class.


I've seen that one, and it does look more appealing than the UA one, but it feels like it takes a little... well, a lot too much from pathfinder to really fit in 5e, having way too many abilities way too early to fit in at low levels. Higher levels it's probably fine, but none the less it's not a version that I would expect to be allowed to play.


I'd like to see different interpretations of "pet"-based archetypes. Like, a Barbarian with an animal companion that works a bit differently from the Ranger. Maybe a Cleric domain that gets access to it too, but again, with enough difference so as not to just be "Beast Conclave 2: Electric Boogaloo".

give me a barbarian with an animal companion that rages when you rage, gaining all the same benefits

[2D8HP]

...Magic Musicians (Bard) but have not read any fantasy with said archetype so no examples....


The 1983 novel by Alan Dean Fostet Spellsinger (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spellsinger_(novel)) fits the "music magician" archetype.

I remember it as "okay", but I never read the sequels.


Only for fighters, rangers and rogues.


"Only"?

You listed every class there is! For me.

[JackPhoenix]

"Only"?

You listed every class there is!

You forgot barbarian. It may be younger than the rest, but it's rated M for Manly

[Rebonack]

An actual eldritch abomination-style Warlock patron would be nice. Something focused on fear and insanity.

GOO is nice, but I feel like it's a better fit for an aboleth or elder brain patron.

[Daithi]

I'd like to see some kind of dark druid. I'm picturing a druid in the shadowfell. Although the urban druid that wild shapes into a swarm of rats (scales with level) would be pretty cool too.

An option for "pets" would be good. Although I'd just make this a feat.

I'd also like to see a thrown weapons option for both rogues and fighters. This could also just be a feat.

Witch -- this could really fit well with the elemental concept.

[Luccan]

A dedicated shapeshifter. Moon Druids and Transmutation spells are nice, but not necessarily what I'm looking for.

[Millstone85]

I'm picturing a druid in the shadowfell.I am really intrigued by the idea of a Shadowfell druid. It seems to be a place where undeath would "naturally" occur, which could inspire a druid circle.

There was a bit of that in the UA Circle of Spores. "Unlike most other druids, they see nothing inherently wrong with undeath, which they consider to be a companion to life and death". But I am not entirely sure this should be fused with the theme of fungi.

[Spiritchaser]

An INY based half caster martial. This could have spell breaker sub class, plus whatever.

A bigger one? A martial class designed to work well with a mix of strength and Dex. (Barb sor of works for this, but only in a narrow way) There are so many concepts that fit, and very few ways currently to make this work.

You could argue that this should be a core rules change, or that it could be a feat, but I’d be happy with a class in a pinch.

[bluedogz]

I've been working on (too much) homebrew for a lot of gaps I see, personally:

Working on a Bard based on writing and rhetoric as opposed to song and performance,
[/B].

Couldn't this already be played under College of Lore?

Interestingly, I tried to model a Rogue on Petyr Baelish from GoT, and my DM commented, "you know, these really look like Bard numbers, but you do you..."

[bluedogz]

I am really intrigued by the idea of a Shadowfell druid. It seems to be a place where undeath would "naturally" occur, which could inspire a druid circle.

There was a bit of that in the UA Circle of Spores. "Unlike most other druids, they see nothing inherently wrong with undeath, which they consider to be a companion to life and death". But I am not entirely sure this should be fused with the theme of fungi.

Doesn't the Vampire: Masquerade RPG take this where its needs to go?

[ChaosSpiral]

I'd like to see more Paths for Barbarians personally as it feels a bit lacking and I was kinda thinking to go with the fact that almost every pure martial class has its own spellcasting archetype of some sort, maybe something like the bloodrager in Pathfinder or maybe something more druidic or elemental like when he rages he can cast specific elemental spells or he is more in touch with Nature. I dunno... I just feel Barbarians should have the option of magic too :smalleek:

[JakOfAllTirades]

Otherworldly Patrons:

Sacred Oaths:
* Oath of Balance, the TN-flavored one.


Now I wanna play a Paladin from Tennessee....

[dragoeniex]

An operatic bard - one with a weaponized voice hitting notes high enough to cause thunder damage, shatter effects, tremors, or temporary deafness. Maybe disorientation? Whichever are chosen for offensive options, flipside could be an AoE "calm emotions" type effect for softer singing.

I want an ability (1/rest) that has your target make a wisdom save, and on a fail, they are compelled to only communicate in musical ballads for the rest of the day.

Which seems like just fun and games, except now they also have 0 chance of discreetly planning/doing things because any time they go to write a letter or something, the words well up in their throat and come bursting out as they pen it. But also mostly it's just fun.

[Crgaston]

Now I wanna play a Paladin from Tennessee....

“Hold my ale...”

[Luccan]

Now I wanna play a Paladin from Tennessee....

For when you have a prayer in Memphis.

[Vogie]

Another Pet-based class... In addition to the above Barbarian suggestion, maybe a Warlock Pact boon?
A Swarm-based druid archetype.


An actual eldritch abomination-style Warlock patron would be nice. Something focused on fear and insanity.

GOO is nice, but I feel like it's a better fit for an aboleth or elder brain patron.

I was thinking the other day it seems odd that the only Fear- or frightening-based subclass is the Paladin's Oath of Conquest.

[Bobby Baratheon]

The odds of this are very slim, but I do wish that Binder was its own class again. It's been subsumed in the warlock (hence the slim odds), but I always really liked the interesting playstyle of the binder and the personality changes from pacts were extremely fun to roleplay. I guess I just miss my binder/warlock/eldritch theurge cheese from 3e :(

I also wish that fear-based subclasses were a real thing again. Fear just feels less interesting than previously, but I think there's still enough design space for a 5e equivalent of the Dread Witch or the Nightmare Spinner. To clarify, though, I am aware that a lot of current archetypes can use fear, but there don't really seem to be any based on truly weaponizing it. Fear being simpler in this edition probably has something to do with that, I guess.

[Naanomi]

I also wish that fear-based subclasses were a real thing again. Fear just feels less interesting than previously, but I think there's still enough design space for a 5e equivalent of the Dread Witch or the Nightmare Spinner. To clarify, though, I am aware that a lot of current archetypes can use fear, but there don't really seem to be any based on truly weaponizing it. Fear being simpler in this edition probably has something to do with that, I guess.
Conquest Paladin is all about using Fear as a hard control effect...

[wilhelmdubdub]

master thrower that allows the thrown weapons to be drawn as part of the attack
beastmaster barbarian that the companion rages when you rage
beastmaster druid where the animal takes an element (like eevee from Pokemon), I imagine it knowing dragon's breath spell and uses one of your spell slots to cast it

[Kane0]

- Barbarian path that physically changes you while raging (fiendish or lycanthrope)
- Shapechanger Sorcerer bloodline
- Druid Circle of Decay
- Ur-Priest Cleric
- Brute Rogue
- A magic-eater archetype
- Alchemist themed subclass or two
- Artificer/construct themed subclass or two
- Binder/Witch themed invocations for warlock, presumably locked to Chain/Tome Pact
- A proper Warlord (nonmagical support) subclass, so we don't need to put together a multiclass with feats just for the same feeling

And not strictly in the same vein:
Replace Hexblade with a giant pact for a warrior type warlock, use Hexblade as a subclass for another class that includes half or partial pact magic casting and some curse features (such as an EK/AT alternative)

Edit: Thankfully a lot of these have already been done by 3rd parties.

[ciarannihill]

Couldn't this already be played under College of Lore?

Interestingly, I tried to model a Rogue on Petyr Baelish from GoT, and my DM commented, "you know, these really look like Bard numbers, but you do you..."

Sort of, but I view Lore bards as the keepers and tellers of stories and legends. Poets ala Beowulf or Gilgamesh and such. I'm thinking of what I have been calling the College of Rhetoric. Bards who thrive on speech and debate, arguments and manipulation. A politician, essentially.

It's a fine line, though, I admit.

[Derpaligtr]

A music based class that doesn't use magic.

Has abilities tied around using intelligence and charisma checks in battle to play or sing in such a way it messes with enemies.

This needs to be a class and not a subclass of an existing class as it wouldn't fit in with the bard (bard is a full caster) or any of the non-casters all that well.

[Mortis_Elrod]

A music based class that doesn't use magic.

Has abilities tied around using intelligence and charisma checks in battle to play or sing in such a way it messes with enemies.

This needs to be a class and not a subclass of an existing class as it wouldn't fit in with the bard (bard is a full caster) or any of the non-casters all that well.

That seems really niche and not in line with the rest of D&D/fantasy. Generally what you describe still falls under Bard. Thats what bardic inspiration is.

I'm not sure this has any place as a subclass, and definitely not a class.

[Vogie]

That seems really niche and not in line with the rest of D&D/fantasy. Generally what you describe still falls under Bard. Thats what bardic inspiration is.

I'm not sure this has any place as a subclass, and definitely not a class.

I don't know - I could see them doing something akin to a Spell-less bard, not unlike the Spell-Less Ranger.

However, it'd have to be a class that has a subtype feature starting at level 1, which bard sadly does not.

Maybe a Pact-Magic-less Warlock?

[Beleriphon]

The 1983 novel by Alan Dean Fostet Spellsinger (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spellsinger_(novel)) fits the "music magician" archetype.

I remember it as "okay", but I never read the sequels.

There's another one with an opera singer that gets transported to magic land. A magic land where music makes magic work, but they never figured out full orchestral harmony. You can see where this is going.


Now I wanna play a Paladin from Tennessee....

And the paladin needs to be named Jack. Or Daniel. Whatever works for you. With a sword he calls Old No. 7.

[Eric Diaz]

- Warlord / leader.

- Warlord / tactician (maybe mastermind?).

- Mathmagician (although its probably coming in Ravnica).

These are easy to do with house rules:

- Dexterity Barb ("dervish", blade dancer etc).

- Strength Monk.

And some weapons that have no "official" good feats/fighting styles: spear, thrown, versatile, probably TWF, etc.

[Derpaligtr]

That seems really niche and not in line with the rest of D&D/fantasy. Generally what you describe still falls under Bard. Thats what bardic inspiration is.

I'm not sure this has any place as a subclass, and definitely not a class.

Yeah, no non-magical bards in fantasy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdWO9ozir1Y

Able to manipulate the emotions using just his words. In so much more ways than bardic inspiration. Makes some people mad, inspires others, confuses, and makes it all look awesome. Also lies so well that barely anyone ever doubts him.

[Eric Diaz]

- Barbarian path that physically changes you while raging (fiendish or lycanthrope)
- Shapechanger Sorcerer bloodline
- Druid Circle of Decay
- Ur-Priest Cleric
- Brute Rogue
- A magic-eater archetype
- Alchemist themed subclass or two
- Artificer/construct themed subclass or two
- Binder/Witch themed invocations for warlock, presumably locked to Chain/Tome Pact
- A proper Warlord (nonmagical support) subclass, so we don't need to put together a multiclass with feats just for the same feeling


Nice ones! First one specially. Alchemist and Artificer too.

Druid Circle of Spores in Ravnica will be very "decay-ed" themed, I'd guess.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah, no non-magical bards in fantasy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdWO9ozir1Y

Able to manipulate the emotions using just his words. In so much more ways than bardic inspiration. Makes some people mad, inspires others, confuses, and makes it all look awesome. Also lies so well that barely anyone ever doubts him.

That's just making a Cha check. Anyone can do that. People with proficiency and expertise are better at it.

[Derpaligtr]

That's just making a Cha check. Anyone can do that. People with proficiency and expertise are better at it.

Which has very little rules on it. About one paragraph on the charisma checks.

I want a class that can, using non-magical means, use words and music (like, say, we will rock you) to manipulate the battlefield and social situations. I don't want to just leave it up to the whims of a DM to decide what my character can and can not do.

There's plenty of precedent for non-magical bard abilities in fantasy.

[JackPhoenix]

Which has very little rules on it. About one paragraph on the charisma checks.

I want a class that can, using non-magical means, use words and music (like, say, we will rock you) to manipulate the battlefield and social situations. I don't want to just leave it up to the whims of a DM to decide what my character can and can not do.

There's plenty of precedent for non-magical bard abilities in fantasy.

Yeah, no matter what music you play, you won't "manipulate the battlefield" without magic. And for social situation, that's what Persuasion, Deception, Intimidate and Performance proficiencies are for. I don't know about any precedent that isn't covered by existing rules.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Which has very little rules on it. About one paragraph on the charisma checks.

I want a class that can, using non-magical means, use words and music (like, say, we will rock you) to manipulate the battlefield and social situations. I don't want to just leave it up to the whims of a DM to decide what my character can and can not do.

There's plenty of precedent for non-magical bard abilities in fantasy.

And that would be them making skill checks to determine whether their mundane musical performance was good enough to sway the emotions or whims of the npc, to which the DM controls and decides for. They wouldn't even have to be a bard, you could take a background that gives you proficiency in an instrument, take expertise for performance using Prodigy (or be a Rogue). Now you can whip out your Obo and turn the angry mob into a mosh pit and convince them not to stab you with their farming implements. That's assuming your performance was so spectacular that they didn't interrupt it from the start or a select few didn't find it lackluster and continue to go after you regardless.

What you're suggesting is a supernatural ability to influence people beyond performing or making a well thought out argument. You can't possibly sway the hearts and minds of anything with just that.

What you're suggesting is called magic. Specifically, the 3rd level Enthralling Performance feature available to College of Glamour.

[Particle_Man]

A revisit of the 3.5 incarnate would interest me. Especially if they could bring back the Sapphire Hierarch.

[Kane0]

A revisit of the 3.5 incarnate would interest me. Especially if they could bring back the Sapphire Hierarch.

A Monk Path using Incarnum-like effects powered by Ki would be neat. Or even just make a new subclass for other classes that uses a Ki pool as resource that allows for Monk multiclassing.

[GoodmanDL]

Building on a "fiend barbarian" perhaps an option might be "Path of the Posessed" in which your clan's totem is a powerful outsider who grants outsider themed traits. And like Storm Herald you'd get a choice of three: the Demonic, the Infernal, or the Celestial

[Munckin3.5ed]

A sympathetic magic class would be cool, as in someone who uses an item to extend influence. Also a "beast master" druid that focuses on wildshape and animal companion(s)

[KorvinStarmast]

Bard: - Juggler expert thrower I seem to recall a two book series I read 30+ years ago about a guy who traveled with a troupe of jugglers. lord valentine's castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majipoor_series) Not sure how Valor Bard doesn't handle this.

Cleric: - We have a C'thulu themed Warlock, what about a C'thulu themed cleric? Not sure I understand why. Cult leadership is as much warlock as cleric.

Warlock: - Someone mentioned elemental themes - yes please Hmm, patron being from the elemental plane of air/fire? Seems pretty interesting.

rogue: - We have swashbuckler, but I would love Pirate Swashbuckler is pirate. Backgrounds sailor, criminal, or a mish mash of the two. Pirate.

General comment: I see a failure in imagination in a whole lot of posts in this thread. The tools are there.

I've been working on (too much) homebrew for a lot of gaps I see, personally:
An animal companion Barbarian (and Druid for that matter) is something I'd like to see Yeah, the druid with animal companion model seems to have been overlooked. Barbarian? What are you willing to give up for this? Already have animal totem ...

, a performance based melee character that's a non-caster aka Fighter, Based on what?

an Int based healer (Wizard or otherwise)
How about making the Warlock Int based like they were intending to in the first place but the listened to the whiners in the fan base about charisma based Warlocks. Restore Int Based to Warlock and be celestial. There's your int based healer.

Working on a Bard based on writing and rhetoric as opposed to song and performance
Rhetoric is already covered in the Entertainer Background. Multiple forms of entertainment;

A Monk based on the classic "animal inspired" kung-fu forms (Mantis, Monkey, Tiger, etc), That's a subset of Martial Arts/Open hand. It's already in the game.

a throwing weapon based Rogue, You can do this MC rogue and fighter. Rogues with daggers are already in the game.

a Paladin who cares about knowledge and it's preservation/availability to the masses... You can already do this. It's called Role Play.
A FINESSE POLEARM. Doesn't have to be martial, even if it was just the basic Spear weapon having Finesse I would be so goddamn happy. No. You seem to be missing the point of what they did with finesse as a tradeoff and the interaction with Dex and Str. They were trying to balance choices; what you are asking for is "nobody will ever pick something else due to Dex as a super stat." which is the kind of thing that they are trying to avoid.

An operatic bard - one with a weaponized voice hitting notes high enough to cause thunder damage, shatter effects, Spell Shatter already exists, it's on the bard list.

temporary deafness.
Silence is already a spell.

Maybe disorientation?
Confusion is already a spell.

I want an ability (1/rest) that has your target make a wisdom save, and on a fail, they are compelled to only communicate in musical ballads for the rest of the day. Most spells don't have a duration that long until you get to much higher levels. So, as the capstone ability at level 20, sure, go for it.

A music based class that doesn't use magic.

Has abilities tied around using intelligence and charisma checks in battle to play or sing in such a way it messes with enemies.Everyone else has to use spell slots. Why are you asking for a resource free ability? How many times per rest do you want this to be available? Resource limitations are a core 5e framework feature.

There's another one with an opera singer that gets transported to magic land. A magic land where music makes magic work, but they never figured out full orchestral harmony. You can see where this is going.
Yes; see above about resources and cost/benefit as a core design feature.

Harry Potter magic isn't 5e magic.

And the paladin needs to be named Jack. Or Daniel. Whatever works for you. With a sword he calls Old No. 7. Yeah, I'm down with that. Don't need a special sub class for that, however. :)
I want a class that can, using non-magical means, use words and music (like, say, we will rock you) to manipulate the battlefield and social situations. Why are you asking for a no-resource-cost magical effect? See above about resources, costs, and benefits in the fundamental 5e design paradigm. The current design framework makes class abilities like that either single, or a few, per long/short rest.

[Millstone85]

For a new class, what I would be most interested in is a psionic knight.

https://pictr.com/images/2018/08/14/0PtsJr.png

The idea being that instead of learning martial disciplines, spellcasting and how to combine the two, they went through a martial training that brought forth the magic within. They are now able to do flourishes such as temporarily gaining a flight speed or sending their weapon to fight by itself for a while.

[KorvinStarmast]

For a new class, what I would be most interested in is a psionic knight.

https://pictr.com/images/2018/08/14/0PtsJr.png

The idea being that instead of learning martial disciplines, spellcasting and how to combine the two, they went through a martial training that brought forth the magic within. They are now able to do flourishes such as temporarily gaining a flight speed or sending their weapon to fight by itself for a while. I am patiently waiting for psionics to get folded into the game in a balanced fashion. When they do, I think your desire will be met.

[JackPhoenix]

General comment: I see a failure in imagination in a whole lot of posts in this thread. The tools are there.

Agree with that.


Yeah, the druid with animal companion model seems to have been overlooked.

Already available. The companion(s) won't scale, but druid has enough tools to have whole zoo... not just summoning, but various spells to charm and talk to animals, and above all, Awaken.


Most spells don't have a duration that long until you get to much higher levels. So, as the capstone ability at level 20, sure, go for it.

It also sounds like good alternative option for Bestow Curse. It doesn't really do anything, it's just annoying. I would be fine with that.


Harry Potter magic isn't 5e magic.

Well, there are cantrips...

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I agree that most things we've got are already supported though a combination of class, background and attitude. There are one or two niches that I'd like to see filled, but avoiding bloat is more important to me than filling every possible niche. I'd like to have a rogue with some in-combat fear effects that interact with stealth or successful kills. Additionally, a druid subclass with specific anti-undead features like Channel Divinity: Turn Undead and conversions to radiant damage. I could also see a ranger subclass in the same space. That said, I'm only interested if these can be done elegantly. There's no point in duplicating what we've already got.

I'd also like to have some sort of martial character that uses Int in the way the swashbuckler uses Cha or the Monk uses Wis. That's purely for mechanical reasons and to compensate for Int being weaker than Wis or Cha. Another option might be a variant rule for partial Cha/Wis/Int portability, where Int can be substituted into class features for Wis or Cha, and Wis can be substituted for Cha. It's a mad idea since you'd suddenly have Int-based Wizlocks or Wis-based Druidlocks and I suspect that would be tough to manage.

[Derpaligtr]

I seem to recall a two book series I read 30+ years ago about a guy who traveled with a troupe of jugglers. lord valentine's castle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majipoor_series) Not sure how Valor Bard doesn't handle this.
Not sure I understand why. Cult leadership is as much warlock as cleric.
Hmm, patron being from the elemental plane of air/fire? Seems pretty interesting.
Swashbuckler is pirate. Backgrounds sailor, criminal, or a mish mash of the two. Pirate.

General comment: I see a failure in imagination in a whole lot of posts in this thread. The tools are there.
Yeah, the druid with animal companion model seems to have been overlooked. Barbarian? What are you willing to give up for this? Already have animal totem ...
Based on what?

How about making the Warlock Int based like they were intending to in the first place but the listened to the whiners in the fan base about charisma based Warlocks. Restore Int Based to Warlock and be celestial. There's your int based healer.

Rhetoric is already covered in the Entertainer Background. Multiple forms of entertainment;
That's a subset of Martial Arts/Open hand. It's already in the game.
You can do this MC rogue and fighter. Rogues with daggers are already in the game.
You can already do this. It's called Role Play. No. You seem to be missing the point of what they did with finesse as a tradeoff and the interaction with Dex and Str. They were trying to balance choices; what you are asking for is "nobody will ever pick something else due to Dex as a super stat." which is the kind of thing that they are trying to avoid.
Spell Shatter already exists, it's on the bard list.

Silence is already a spell.

Confusion is already a spell.
Most spells don't have a duration that long until you get to much higher levels. So, as the capstone ability at level 20, sure, go for it.

Everyone else has to use spell slots. Why are you asking for a resource free ability? How many times per rest do you want this to be available? Resource limitations are a core 5e framework feature.

Yes; see above about resources and cost/benefit as a core design feature.

Harry Potter magic isn't 5e magic.
Yeah, I'm down with that. Don't need a special sub class for that, however. :) Why are you asking for a no-resource-cost magical effect? See above about resources, costs, and benefits in the fundamental 5e design paradigm. The current design framework makes class abilities like that either single, or a few, per long/short rest.


So, since the attack action doesn't use a resource, we better get rid of it. I mean, you can even attack twice, thrice, or more within a few seconds! The horror!

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

So, since the attack action doesn't use a resource, we better get rid of it. I mean, you can even attack twice, thrice, or more within a few seconds! The horror!

I'd be interested in hearing what ideas you had for 'messing with enemies'. Imposing at-will disadvantage, penalties to attack or damage rolls or to AC, or more powerful effects like action loss - that all seems very powerful to be resourceless.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So, since the attack action doesn't use a resource, we better get rid of it. I mean, you can even attack twice, thrice, or more within a few seconds! The horror!

It does use a resource, your action during your turn in combat is arguably one of the biggest resources at the table.

A bit more seriously, what you want is unrealistic. You're already able to accomplish it in the game currently (College of Glamour Bard) you can't have that much influence with just words and music without magic. Tell me how you make a class engaging for many players that:
-Doesn't use magic
-Has class abilities exclusively tied to persuading and "charming" (non magically)
-Doesn't use the actual rules for persuading and performing because the DM just has to allow you to succeed, completely disregarding the social pillar of gameplay
-Has to be effective in combat with only mundane words and music, meaning those skills he uses to trivialize the social pillar also have to function in combat
-Not a subclass of Bard, which does all of these things, creating a massive amount of design overlap
-Can't be a Rogue/Fighter either because you said so, even though they would also serve this purpose very well

The video you linked in support of this archetype isn't a hero, he's a charismatic storyteller. He's persuading common people to follow a common cause. Put him up against anything uncommon even so far as a Goblin who doesn't understand common and he's going to be dead in a short minute.

On that note, you've outlined a terrific idea for a low level villain NPC, he's just a regular old charismatic guy who's gotten an entire town under his boot with nothing but the power of his word. Basically an incredibly successful snake oil salesman who was also smart enough to realize his game had turned into a useful tool.

I just don't see it working as a player option, it's far too limited and would lose all of it's strengths as soon as the target didn't understand Common.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Oh, oh, I know... the non-magic bard from this thing (http://is2.4chan.org/tg/1532372226705.pdf).


The video you linked in support of this archetype isn't a hero, he's a charismatic storyteller. He's persuading common people to follow a common cause. Put him up against anything uncommon even so far as a Goblin who doesn't understand common and he's going to be dead in a short minute.

That Cha (Performance) check also doesn't have any purpose than to entertain people... he's not trying to get them to do something. Interesting thing: I see the first clip as failed check, as his words are too complex for the rabble, but the first guy (you can see him being on Chaucer's side in later clip, as William/Ulrich's squire/helper, but I don't remember the movie enough to remember if they working together in the first scene) who started applauding actually uses Help to give him advantage, which passed.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Oh, oh, I know... the non-magic bard from this thing (http://is2.4chan.org/tg/1532372226705.pdf).



That Cha (Performance) check also doesn't have any purpose than to entertain people... he's not trying to get them to do something. Interesting thing: I see the first clip as failed check, as his words are too complex for the rabble, but the first guy (you can see him being on Chaucer's side in later clip, as William/Ulrich's squire/helper, but I don't remember the movie enough to remember if they working together in the first scene) who started applauding actually uses Help to give him advantage, which passed.

That's an interesting take on a spell-less Bard but from what I understand Derpaligtr wants an entirely non-magical Bard, this Troubadour class pulls magic directly from the weave to bolster their performances. Taking out the Bard spell list seems to have just made it have a lot of extra features that function similarly to spells, many of which aren't uniform in what kind of rest they recharge on.

You've effectively just made a lot of extra bookkeeping and replaced a spell list with extra class features, this is the biggest issue I have with the idea.

Among my many minor complaints that have little to do with anything: The Malicious Scorn feature is literally Vicious Mockery dealing zero damage, Certain Blow is true strike of all things to consider worth a class feature. Bardic Inspiration has been renamed (inconsistently with features using it) to Favor. It's been given several class features that share a name with other features in the game that do drastically different things.

Ranting on that homebrew class aside, I think we're agreeing in the sense that what Derpaligtr wants in a "non-magical bard" is already available in the game rules and the insistence on an entirely non-magical variant is unrealistic as standard Cha checks don't grant you that much influence (and he doesn't want the abilities to involve skill checks anyway).

Or to say it on topic, the Archetype is not missing and you can already create it in 5e.

[Bobby Baratheon]

Conquest Paladin is all about using Fear as a hard control effect...

To clarify, I'm referring more to a caster class built around fear/psychological effects. I hadn't looked especially closely at the Conquest paladin, though, so I'm glad there's at least one archetype out there in line with what I'm thinking.

[Tetrasodium]

wgte 43 talks about wandslinger as a concept that you could refluff other classes with, but I think that a fighter based wandslinger archetype that uses int would be an awesome addition.

[JackPhoenix]

wgte 43 talks about wandslinger as a concept that you could refluff other classes with, but I think that a fighter based wandslinger archetype that uses int would be an awesome addition.

I made one after WGtE was released. Few people who saw it liked the first draft, but it's unfinished and without any balance testing.

[Tetrasodium]

I made one after WGtE was released. Few people who saw it liked the first draft, but it's unfinished and without any balance testing.

Interesting, I sent you a pm about it

[Rebonack]

It occurs to me that we're missing a Strength/Grappling monk monastic tradition, too.

Something like...

Level 3: Str as a bonus to some Monk-y features to reduce the MAD problem a bit. Or at least to make it less painful.

Level 6: Deal Martial Arts damage on a successful Grapple check plus spend a Ki Point to gain advantage on a Grapple check.

Level 11: Size matters not. Grapple ALL the things!

Level 14: Stunning Fist on a creature you're Grappling paralyzes the target rather than stuns.

[Mortis_Elrod]

It occurs to me that we're missing a Strength/Grappling monk monastic tradition, too.

Something like...

Level 3: Str as a bonus to some Monk-y features to reduce the MAD problem a bit. Or at least to make it less painful.

Level 6: Deal Martial Arts damage on a successful Grapple check plus spend a Ki Point to gain advantage on a Grapple check.

Level 11: Size matters not. Grapple ALL the things!

Level 14: Stunning Fist on a creature you're Grappling paralyzes the target rather than stuns.

It’s be better if they just let you use Dex for grappling on the monk. Or rather better as in simpler. I know that there’s a lot of talk about Dex being too good and this adds to it but it’s already a Dex focused class so...

Level 17 not 14 on the last feature for monk subclass. Common mistake I make too. I wouldn’t mind playing this monk.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, since the attack action doesn't use a resource, we better get rid of it. I mean, you can even attack twice, thrice, or more within a few seconds! The horror! Please look straight up. The point I was making went over your head. Besides, you are making an apples and oranges comparison. All characters have attack options, some more than others which is part of how classes get differentiated. The devs in this edition went to considerable effort to try and pull back from the quadratic wizard linear fighter problem. Your suggestions were a step in the wrong direction, which is why I addressed them at all.

[Sception]

I'd like to see:

pet classes with working mechanics, where the character's primary combat functionality is channeled in some way through the pet. IMO this needs to be a distinct class (with subclasses for different pets) rather than a subclass of an existing class because, again, to capture the right feel, the character's primary combat functionality has to be channeled through the pet, the pet can't just be tacked on to an otherwise independently functioninal core chasis the way subclasses are tacked onto their parent class architecture. There are bunches of strong thematic options to build around (beastmaster, frankenstein/reanimator, robot-crafting mechanic, ghost summoning spirit medium, monster summoner, etc), and multiple mechanical takes that could be worked out (multiple pets vs. singular, summoned vs. permanent, direct combat ability vs. area control/buffing/debuffing, etc), so imo there's room for not one but several entirely classes here.


Working pet classes are the biggest and most sorely absent mechanical niche in the current 5e system for me, but there are some thematic concepts I'd like to see, whether as classes or subclasses:

1) undead-oriented necromantic cleric domain. Death has the right fluff, but the wrong mechanics here.

2) shadow-caster. This could be a wizard tradition, a warlock pact boon, a new class, or all of the above. Specifically I'm looking for a dark magic wizard channeling spells through their shadow. Shadow sorcerer and shadow monk have the right theme, but is missing that key mechanical element - plus the sorcerer's spell list is lacking for this, and it's a theme that I don't think should be narrowly applied to only a couple classes. In particular a warlock pact boon (not patron) with similar effects to the trickery cleric's channel divinity - ie, my shadow moves independently of me and I can cast spells from its location - would capture more or less the mechanical effect I'm looking for.

3) artificer/mechanic and mystic/psion. These are already in development, I kind of like the direction of the most recent playtest versions even if the implementation wasn't quite there yet. I look forward to seeing where the devs take them.

3) fear-based caster. Conqueror Paladin does some of this, but in a decidedly tanky/melee type package. I'm talking more a 'dread witch' kind of character, whether as a wizard tradition, warlock patron, cleric school, sorcerer bloodline (hag bloodline?), or an entirely new class, with extra abilities or spell riders triggering on frightened enemies, perhaps the ability to bypass resistance & immunity to frighten, maybe bonuses for being frightened themselves - feeding on their own fear and panic to empower their spells?


I'd also like to see more spells in general, particularly in the school of necromancy. New spells or modifications to the existing animate dead to create some of the variant skeletons and zombies from the monster manual, lower level spells for minor undead (animals/mounts/beasts of burden/non-combat assistants) so that necromancers can *feel* like necromancers before they get to level 5, maybe some new higher level spells that piggy-back on your existing undead control pool to help weaker pets perform at higher levels - say a concentration spell that enhances the attacks & defenses of nearby undead under your control, one that takes an action each round to maintain so there's a bit of a trade off there and so that the undead servants actually feel like the main focus of your contribution rather than just 'hey I'm a wizard, doing wizard things with my actions, plus I guess skeletons'. Maybe a 'corpse explosion' type spell to destroy an undead under your control, dealing necrotic damage to creatures surrounding it, maybe upcast to target more undead at a time?

I don't know, that kind of stuff. I mean, Animate Dead is a good spell as is, but I'd like more of a necromancy-themed character's (whether necromancer wizard or undead oriented cleric or sorcerer or what have you) actions in combat to revolve around actually commanding their undead, in order to get that all important game feel across.

[Rebonack]

It’s be better if they just let you use Dex for grappling on the monk. Or rather better as in simpler. I know that there’s a lot of talk about Dex being too good and this adds to it but it’s already a Dex focused class so...

Level 17 not 14 on the last feature for monk subclass. Common mistake I make too. I wouldn’t mind playing this monk.

I had considered that as an option, too. If that route were taken I would say gain it at level 3 along with the 'Spend a Ki Point to get advantage on your Acrobatics roll' for the grapple. The Str option is just there because the idea of Str not factoring into grapples just feels wonky to me. And on the upside, adding Str to, say, Unarmored Defense would make for a less squishy Monk. Doubly important for a subclass that would be sticking around in the thick of things grappling folks.

[Ortho]

How about an Int based (or secondary) character other than a magic-user? There's a wealth of subtypes that lean on Charisma, plenty that like Wisdom, plus the entire Monk class, but absolutely nothing that "uses its Intelligence in combat," except to empower magic.

How about an Archaeologist archetype for Rogue - uses typical Rogue weapons, but uses Int to gain advantage on an enemy? Something along the lines of "Hmm, if I research this particular type of enemy for an hour, I might gain some knowledge of its weaknesses."

[Crgaston]

How about an Archaeologist archetype for Rogue - uses typical Rogue weapons, but uses Int to gain advantage on an enemy? Something along the lines of "Hmm, if I research this particular type of enemy for an hour, I might gain some knowledge of its weaknesses."

The Inquisitive Rogue does this with an Insight check... SA damage without having to have Advantage. Swap it to Investigation or Insight(Int) and you’re golden.

[KorvinStarmast]

How about an Archaeologist archetype for Rogue - uses typical Rogue weapons, but uses Int to gain advantage on an enemy? Something along the lines of "Hmm, if I research this particular type of enemy for an hour, I might gain some knowledge of its weaknesses." Just a thought: Archaeologist Background is in the ToA published adventure, and Inquisitive Rogue from XGtE is close to this already.

[AvvyR]

Just like every other time this thread appears, the majority of these can be achieved with existing classes with appropriate backgrounds and refluffing.

I think a lot of people are stuck in a 3.5/Pathfinder mindset that every character idea needs extensive mechanical hyperspecialization, and 5e just isn't built like that.

[Kadesh]

Just like every other time this thread appears, the majority of these can be achieved with existing classes with appropriate backgrounds and refluffing.

I think a lot of people are stuck in a 3.5/Pathfinder mindset that every character idea needs extensive mechanical hyperspecialization, and 5e just isn't built like that.

I bet you're fun at parties.

[KorvinStarmast]

I bet you're fun at parties. But he's right. :smallwink:

[Kadesh]

But he's right. :smallwink:

I'd rather be fun at parties though.

[Sception]

Just like every other time this thread appears, the majority of these can be achieved with existing classes with appropriate backgrounds and refluffing.

I think a lot of people are stuck in a 3.5/Pathfinder mindset that every character idea needs extensive mechanical hyperspecialization, and 5e just isn't built like that.

Just like the "druid" and "paladin" concepts could be achieved via refluffed and proper background on cleric, and cleric in turn, along with sorcerer and warlock, could be achieved via wizard, and ranger, barbarian, & rogue via fighter. Why, if only players had enough "imagination" to think inside the smallest possible boxes we could play dnd with just two classe - magic man and muggle. Surely anybody who asks for anything else is just stuck in old backwards thinking! How small minded of them to want mechanical distinction or novel play mechanics between characters!

[AvvyR]

Just like the "druid" and "paladin" concepts could be achieved via refluffed and proper background on cleric, and cleric in turn, along with sorcerer and warlock, could be achieved via wizard, and ranger, barbarian, & rogue via fighter. Why, if only players had enough "imagination" to think inside the smallest possible boxes we could play dnd with just two classe - magic man and muggle. Surely anybody who asks for anything else is just stuck in old backwards thinking! How small minded of them to want mechanical distinction or novel play mechanics between characters!

I'm glad we've established that there's no middle ground between "two classes" and "500+ classes and variants, so you can differentiate a wizard who specializes in summons, a summoner who is his own class and not a wizard, and a summoner who not only does the summoning but does it slightly differently, and what if like, instead of summoning he WAS the summon?" (I know, I'm harping on PF's summoner class pretty hard)

[Kadesh]

I'm glad we've established that there's no middle ground between "two classes" and "500+ classes and variants, so you can differentiate a wizard who specializes in summons, a summoner who is his own class and not a wizard, and a summoner who not only does the summoning but does it slightly differently, and what if like, instead of summoning he WAS the summon?" (I know, I'm harping on PF's summoner class pretty hard)

Who was askng for 500 variants? Nice try at a strawman, though.

[AvvyR]

PF has at least 500 variants.

Edit: And to be completely fair to myself, the post I was countering was itself a strawman

[Kadesh]

PF has at least 500 variants.

Edit: And to be completely fair to myself, the post I was countering was itself a strawman
Yes. And you are the one party pooping based on a different game with different goals, and complaining abojt those goals being different. Its like going into a thread talking about Ford cars and complaining about a VW.

Malisteen made the very valid point that what you were suggesting could easily be broken down into refluffing a theoretical Magic Man and Muggle all you needed was a bit of ability with being able to refluff. A sibgle strong attack (like Sneak Attack) couod be fluffed as needing to make multiple attack rolls against the targets weak spots, with each 'hit' meaning you hit a more vital part. Flame Strike? Refluffed Fireball. Wild Shape? Polymorph.

So, hey, yeh, complain about a different games' different design ethos in a thread where noone on topic was talking about it, then whinge when someone calls out your 500+ variant argument as being nonesense, and cry harder when your exact same argument can be used to streamline the game even more so. But if thats' how you like to go on in life, don't let my personal judgement get in the way, you knock yourself out :)

[NiklasWB]

Gaps I have noticed and tried to homebrew myself over the years to fill those gaps:

Barbarian
Juggernaut (non magical non-berserker barbarian that focuses on wrecking structures and enemies). Matt Mercer's Tal Dorei Juggernaut is a good example of a non-official take on it.

Fighter
Warlord (tactical leader that grants benefits/attacks/non magical healing while being a frontline warrior). Perhaps the most obvious gap in the game. Make it a fighter subclass already. It has a large fanbase and is requested constantly)

Cleric
Craft Domain (Technology and creation domain). The Forge domain came close, but is too focused on melee and heavy armor. This one should focus more on creating a mechanical pet, creating objects and having a large amount of tools and gadgets etc.

Monk
Healing Monk (ranged healing monk) Just like the Sun Soul is a martial version of the Light Domain Cleric, there should be a Life Domain equivalent.

Wizard
Summoner (focused more on one actual pet than the Conjurer).


Completely new classes

Shapeshifter
Like Beorn form the Hobbit. A non-spellcaster shapeshifter that uses animal aspects to become an animal. (like the Shifter from Pathfinder)

[Millstone85]

Shapeshifter
Like Beorn form the Hobbit. A non-spellcaster shapeshifter that uses animal aspects to become an animal. (like the Shifter from Pathfinder)Isn't Beorn considered the inspiration for the werebear, though?

Then again, I think 2e had a shapeshifter druid kit, whose fluff involved mastered lycanthropy.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes. And you are the one party pooping based on a different game with different goals, and complaining abojt those goals being different. Its like going into a thread talking about Ford cars and complaining about a VW.

Malisteen made the very valid point that what you were suggesting could easily be broken down into refluffing a theoretical Magic Man and Muggle all you needed was a bit of ability with being able to refluff. A sibgle strong attack (like Sneak Attack) couod be fluffed as needing to make multiple attack rolls against the targets weak spots, with each 'hit' meaning you hit a more vital part. Flame Strike? Refluffed Fireball. Wild Shape? Polymorph.

So, hey, yeh, complain about a different games' different design ethos in a thread where noone on topic was talking about it, then whinge when someone calls out your 500+ variant argument as being nonesense, and cry harder when your exact same argument can be used to streamline the game even more so. But if thats' how you like to go on in life, don't let my personal judgement get in the way, you knock yourself out :)

On the first point, I believe he was harping at the idea that people want 5E to be as diverse in it's character creation as PF is, which is the opposite of what you're interpreting it as. He's advocating for 5E's simplistic "Take this chassis and make it unique to your character" rather than a complex archetype system that has a seperate class for a Wizard Summoner and a Intelligence based summoner. I don't recall any mention of those systems being bad, just that 5E isn't 3.xE or Pathfinder and people shouldn't try to make it exactly like them.

On the second point, that's a very obviously sarcastic strawman argument. It's not a valid point, I could even further simplify it to "you play a farmer who can fluff all of his abilities in interesting and creative ways" and it would be equally valid under your criteria. The baselines presented in the PHB are enough create most character ideas, that's the point that was being made by AvvyR and he's absolutely correct.

On the final point I think you're taking this a bit too personally. I also hope the irony of calling someone elses factual statement (I did a quick google search and my goodness are there a ton of overlapping archetypes in PF) in response a strawman argument "nonsense" isn't lost on you. I've been (at least in my opinion) pretty vocal about how I think a lot of these "archetypes" that people are asking for are not only simple to recreate but some are already available in this system. There has been discussion, explicitly, about how a lot of these ideas are already achievable because 5E is intentionally designed to allow you to create these archetypes by combining classes and backgrounds. People who are playing 5E and enjoy 5E want it to stay mostly the same as it is, not become Pathfinder or 3.xE in it's complexity.

We don't need an archaeologist subclass because we have a background and a whip. We don't need a pestilence based cleric because Storm Domain is given all the necessary tools. We don't need a non magical bard variant who rules social encounters because College of Glamour exists, for the non magical variant just be an entertainer fighter or rogue with a DM willing to really stretch how effective a well thought out argument and a boppin tune is against a bugbear.

There are class options that are legitimately absent, like the Artificer and Psion, but those are actively being worked on and are available to playtest already.

[Sception]

We don't need...

Again, this same reasoning could be applied to 3/4 of the subclasses and even entire classes that we already have. We didn't "need" a scout, or a duelist, or an inquisitive, or an assassin, or a mercy paladin, or a storm sorcerer, or a glamour bard, or the majority of cleric donains. We didn't "need" the entire sorcerer or EDIT: Warlock classes, all character concepts they represent could easily be played as refluffed wizards. If multiclassing and feats were considered core rather than optional, then we wouldn't "need" arcane tricksters or eldritch knights or hexblades or bladesingers or whisper bards, or paladins and druids in their entirety. We don't "need" psions and artificers even now.

But while none of these things were "needed", they do bring a lot of gameplay distinction, and make different character concepts actually feel distinct and fun in their gameplay. I certainly agree that there can reach a point when there are too many options, but in my opinion 5e is far, far from that point now. And while I can appreciate that you might have a differring opinion there, the way you described your position makes it seem like we should have already crossed way way over your line of too many "conceptually redundant" options way back with the initial phb release.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Again, this same reasoning could be applied to 3/4 of the subclasses and even entire classes that we already have. We didn't "need" a scout, or a duelist, or an inquisitive, or an assassin, or a mercy paladin, or a storm sorcerer, or a glamour bard, or the majority of cleric donains. We didn't "need" the entire sorcerer or wizard classes, all character concepts they represent could easily be played as refluffed wizards. If multiclassing and feats were considered core rather than optional, then we wouldn't "need" arcane tricksters or eldritch knights or hexblades or bladesingers or whisper bards, or paladins and druids in their entirety. We don't "need" psions and artificers even now.

But while none of these things were "needed", they do bring a lot of gameplay distinction, and make different character concepts actually feel distinct and fun in their gameplay. I certainly agree that there can reach a point when there are too many options, but in my opinion 5e is far, far from that point now. And while I can appreciate that you might have a differring opinion there, the way you described your position makes it seem like we should have already crossed way way over your line of too many "conceptually redundant" options way back with the initial phb release.

I brought up examples of archetypes that have little gameplay potential beyond what's already available, I didn't say specifically that we didn't need any extra options. In fact I was clear, and cited examples of, options that have strong gameplay incentives.

When I say we don't need a subclass based around Archeology its' because the Archeology background covers all of the gameplay functions around "Archeology". When I mentioned a previously suggested Pestilence Cleric it was becase Tempest (although I said storm originally, mistake) Cleric can already function in much the same role as an archetypal plague caller can, there's little distinction to make in this case so why bother making it. I brought up College of Glamour because a previous poster wanted an bard like class that can dominate a battlefield with their words and music.

There's obviously room for many new ideas in 5E, I never disputed this, but what I dispute is the ideas people are suggesting that are already easily available in the game and creating a new class with those features would do nothing but copy already existing gameplay elements into a "new" class.

[Sception]

I brought up examples of archetypes that have little gameplay potential beyond what's already available.

What seemed to get harped on most was not Archeologist (an idea that, imo, has neither less nor more gameplay potential than, say, 'inquisitive'), but rather Summoner.

I don't see why the existance of a conjuration specialist wizard should preclude the existance of a separate summoner class any more than an evokation specialist should preclude a sorcerer or an enchantment specialist should preclude a psion. Especially when proper pet-based character mechanics are currently so sorely lacking in 5e.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I’m of the opinion that we are unlikely to see more than 4 additional classes from the phb. And some are probably going to be setting specific, or rather all.

Currently this would entail Artificer, Psion, and two others. And I doubt that Summoner and Shapeshifter are gonna be the other 2.

That being said, Summoner could easily be a wizard school.

Shapeshifting has a number of ways to be handled already, though it indeed limited in scope.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What seemed to get harped on most was not Archeologist (an idea that, imo, has neither less nor more gameplay potential than, say, 'inquisitive'), but rather Summoner.

I don't see why the existance of a conjuration specialist wizard should preclude the existance of a separate summoner class any more than an evokation specialist should preclude a sorcerer or an enchantment specialist should preclude a psion. Especially when proper pet-based character mechanics are currently so sorely lacking in 5e.

I'm not against a summoner (sub)class, spells to summon minions aren't very powerful beyond Find Familiar granting Help cheese. The implementation is probably more of the issue in this case.

The necromancer touches on the minion type aspect only slightly, and it being limited to undead thralls (can't really refluff Animate Dead without extensive changes) is a bit lackluster. Making class features that are compelling and not just a slight buff to existing spells would probably prove to be a challenge, as well as making sure that the summoner doesn't clog up initiative order with too many creatures.

You're really dragging my point far away from where it should be with these strawmans though.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, no non-magical bards in fantasy...

This came up with the spell-less ranger as well. Rangers got spells because in oD&D there were not enough mechanics outside of combat and spells to emulate the LotR Strider's abilities, and D&D has never really looked back since. D&D uses spells (or 'spells' in the case of things like psionics or Bo9S's 'maneuvers') in the place of any given modular ruleset that a class or build needs, regardless of whether the fiction one is trying to genre-emulate specifically uses magic. I'm really not clear on why that is a big deal.

Mind you, I think a social-skill focused rogue (perhaps with inspiring leader, just to synergize on a high Cha) is a great concept, but that's all the mechanical support I think the character type needs.


Again, this same reasoning could be applied to 3/4 of the subclasses and even entire classes that we already have. We didn't "need" a scout, or a duelist, or an inquisitive, or an assassin, or a mercy paladin, or a storm sorcerer, or a glamour bard, or the majority of cleric donains. We didn't "need" the entire sorcerer or wizard classes, all character concepts they represent could easily be played as refluffed wizards. If multiclassing and feats were considered core rather than optional, then we wouldn't "need" arcane tricksters or eldritch knights or hexblades or bladesingers or whisper bards, or paladins and druids in their entirety. We don't "need" psions and artificers even now.

But while none of these things were "needed", they do bring a lot of gameplay distinction, and make different character concepts actually feel distinct and fun in their gameplay. I certainly agree that there can reach a point when there are too many options, but in my opinion 5e is far, far from that point now. And while I can appreciate that you might have a differring opinion there, the way you described your position makes it seem like we should have already crossed way way over your line of too many "conceptually redundant" options way back with the initial phb release.

D&D is and always has been a mongrel beast that eschews purity and is halfway along any given spectrum. There's never going to be a one right answer to how much mechanical distinction needs to exist to support each potential character conception (other than 3e/PF seems to have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and the 3e Unearthed Arcana book's generic martial/skill/spell class idea didn't take off).

I think the only point I would make is on the statement, "If multiclassing and feats were considered core rather than optional, then we wouldn't "need" arcane tricksters or eldritch knights or hexblades or bladesingers or whisper bards, or paladins and druids in their entirety" -- this I strongly agree with (in almost every case, a MC or feat would be a better solution than another archetype and new write-up of mechanics, with all the potential for abuse each new rule block brings)... except that I think people really do like getting new class options in splat books (as muted and slowed as it is in 5e compared to 3e or the like).

I don't know that we "need" any new archetypes, but I am *surprised* that we haven't gotten a few. Artificer and psion, I know they are working on, and leery of, but I suspect we will get eventually. A multiclass-free fighter-rogue combo (either a rogue-like fighter archtype or the reverse) would serve the non-MC groups well. Same with non-MC cleric-rogue. And yeah, a change-into-a-bear type other than Moon Druid would be something I would have expected to see.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I think that's a great point, Willie; further development of archetypes and classes will depend a lot on how they see the product being used. Specifically, if most tables are feat- and multiclass-friendly, there's less need for hybrid classes and archetypes.

[Sception]

You're really dragging my point far away from where it should be with these strawmans though.

What stawmen? Summoner was /explicitly/ called out as an example of pathfinder going too far with unnecessary class options.

I have prsented no strawmen in this thread, only pointed out that the same logic that says we don't need any more classes or subclasses could just as easily be applied to the ones we already have.

Again, the archeologist, another /explicit/ example given of a uselessly redundant concept for a subclass, has neither more nor less potential than the inquisitive, an officially printed subclass that's actually part of the game.

Just because there are existing mechanics that could represent a given concept, doesn't mean that a novel mechanicsl implementation of that concept couldn't bring a worthwhile new play experience to the game.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What stawmen? Summoner was /explicitly/ called out as an example of pathfinder going too far with unnecessary class options.

I have prsented no strawmen in this thread, only pointed out that the same logic that says we don't need any more classes or subclasses could just as easily be applied to the ones we already have.

Again, the archeologist, another /explicit/ example given of a uselessly redundant concept for a subclass, has neither more nor less potential than the inquisitive, an officially printed subclass that's actually part of the game.

Just because there are existing mechanics that could represent a given concept, doesn't mean that a novel mechanicsl implementation of that concept couldn't bring a worthwhile new play experience to the game.
None of the archetypes are what I was referring to. I was referring to your constant assertion that my opinions mean that several classes should not exist and the game could be boiled down to a single magical and a single non magical class.

I do not believe that, I haven't said that and the fact that you keep trying to tell me that's what I think is the strawman I'm referring to.

On the note of the Inquisitive, it gives a combat focused use to the insight skill that did not exist prior. It enabled a social focused Rogue to foil Mastermind type rogues (Xanathars Guide seemed to have a theme for creating opposing subclasses). It had more potential in that aspect than an Archeologist class. There was room to develop a broad Sherlock Holmes type of subclass. The developers decided that the same room wasn't there for an Indiana Jones type of subclass.

I am of the opinion that character concepts that can be easily replicated using backgrounds and existing subclasses have little incentive to be made into a unique archetype due to significant overlap with pre-existing mechanics. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, because in a very real way they already do, it just means that they don't need to be expanded beyond what's already available.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I believe the absolute opposite, in 5E a summoner class isn't well defined, it would be an idea worth exploring.

I should clarify that this opinion is very much tied to the design principles of 5E being intended to reduce clutter and feature overlap, I don't have a problem with Pathfinder and 3.xE having those sorts of classes/subclasses.

[RickAsWritten]

Subclasses that I would like to see:

A heavy armor/defensive type Druid. An Abjuration-style Druid. Maybe use bones and fossils as a stand in for heavy armor/the ward.

Druid and Sorcerer subclasses that get second attack at 6th level. Bards, Wizards, and Warlocks have them. Why not these two?

Rage Mage. Though Mearls' Giant Soul kinda scratches this itch.

As others have mentioned: Warlord, Divine 1/3 casters for Fighter and Rogue, Thrower Rogue, Swarm Druid, etc. There were a lot of good ones suggested(and some not so good).

I will say, I'm not really that big on the Pokemon subclasses that everyone seems to want. It would be neat, but not something that I feel is really missing from the game. There are plenty of ways to Minion-mancy, and it's kinda frowned upon anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd rather be fun at parties though. Touché :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Fighter
Warlord (tactical leader that grants benefits/attacks/non magical healing while being a frontline warrior). Perhaps the most obvious gap in the game. Make it a fighter subclass already. It has a large fanbase and is requested constantly)
How does Battle Master not fulfill this, particularly with the Inspiring Leader feat? (I understand the archetype ...) Maybe Purple Dragon Knight was a step toward this that forgot to take the second, third, and fourth step?
Cleric Craft Domain (Technology and creation domain). This one should focus more on creating a mechanical pet, creating objects and having a large amount of tools and gadgets etc. Interesting point, given the prominent place Gond has in FR ...

Healing Monk (ranged healing monk) Just like the Sun Soul is a martial version of the Light Domain Cleric, there should be a Life Domain equivalent. Only after they fix Four Elements. :smallyuk: Yeah, I know, not gonna happen. We might call this the Schizoid Monk class: I beat you up, I heal you, I beat you up, I heal you ... :smallbiggrin:

Mind you, I think a social-skill focused rogue (perhaps with inspiring leader, just to synergize on a high Cha) is a great concept, but that's all the mechanical support I think the character type needs. There's never going to be a one right answer to how much mechanical distinction needs to exist to support each potential character conception With you.

I think the only point I would make is on the statement, "If multiclassing and feats were considered core rather than optional, then we wouldn't "need" arcane tricksters or eldritch knights or hexblades or bladesingers or whisper bards, or paladins and druids in their entirety" --
The never ending search for "fighter magic user" which was the original elf class, and is now referred to as a gish, seems to be an imbedded part of the game.
I don't know that we "need" any new archetypes, but I am *surprised* that we haven't gotten a few. We got new archetypes in SCAG and XGtE. Not sure of your point here.
I am interested to see the final version of the psion/mystic. Getting it wrong is easy to do (see history of psionics in D&D) while getting it right is a bit harder to do. (The occasional bright spot among the noise in D&D psionics ...)

[Millstone85]

For reference, 4e classes:




Controller
Defender
Leader
Striker


Arcane
Wizard
Swordmage
Artificer/Bard
Sorcerer/Warlock


Divine
Invoker
Paladin
Cleric/Runepriest
Avenger


Martial
N/A
Fighter
Warlord
Ranger/Rogue


Primal
Druid/Seeker
Warden
Shaman
Barbarian


Psionic
Psion
Battlemind
Ardent
Monk

[Willie the Duck]

Not sure of your point here.

Pretty much just trying to redirect the conversation away from 'do we even need any of this?' because it's a never ending, mostly pointless circle, and towards what I guess is equally pointless but less contentious questions, like 'what are you surprised that we haven't seen?'


I am interested to see the final version of the psion/mystic. Getting it wrong is easy to do (see history of psionics in D&D) while getting it right is a bit harder to do. (The occasional bright spot among the noise in D&D psionics ...)

I kind of am, but also not. I think I know what will happen: 51%+ of psi-dedicated fanbase dissatisfied with the results. Moreso than many other aspects of D&D, psionics really diverged between editions. I don't know if they can find any one solution that will please a simple majority of the people who care about such things. A little pessimistic I suppose.

[Mortis_Elrod]

You know it’s weird. Not many games I can think that have a fanbase that fears power creep so much they don’t want new content.

it’s just so... jarring. Like the goal is for stagnation.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

You know it’s weird. Not many games I can think that have a fanbase that fears power creep so much they don’t want new content.

it’s just so... jarring. Like the goal is for stagnation.

Well... power creep matters in a game that's intended to be played with other people in a live setting. People need to be on the same page, or problems start to creep in, especially when the business model is getting four to six strangers to sit and be cooperative with each other.

I think that stagnation is a real worry, but I worry that it's a stagnation of roleplaying. People ask occasionally for a pirate-themed archetype. Is there much harm in creating one? No, probably not. But there's a pirate background, a Mariner fighting style, and a number of classes that fit the idea. You can already be a pirate; you just can't be a Pirate 4. You can be an archaeologist, too - you're just going to be a Lore Bard or a Knowledge Cleric or a Thief Rogue who behaves in a certain way.

A lot of what people ask for boils down to style rather than mechanics. I tend to think that the first question has to be "can the concept you want be represented within the existing mechanics?". If the answer is yes, we don't need anything new. If new mechanics are necessary - if we want to bring in the fiddly psionic attack and defense modes, for example - then there might be a space for that class or subclass.

[Willie the Duck]

You know it’s weird. Not many games I can think that have a fanbase that fears power creep so much they don’t want new content.

I don't know if you are referring to TTRPGs or games in general. I think if games like Diablo or World of Warcraft had character option DLC coming out so quickly that you couldn't really try each of the options you found interesting and play them for a character-career, people would complain about it much like they do/did 3.5e/PF. Certainly in games where you compete with (directly or otherwise) the other players on a server or the like, such that abusive build others come up with negatively impact you. In that case, I think there's lots of reasons to favor a slow, steady approach.


it’s just so... jarring. Like the goal is for stagnation.

That would be the negative connotation word for it. The positive connotation one would be Consistency. Regardless, it can be a two-pronged situation. Back in the Day (1e), the game was predominantly stable, with only UA and OA providing many actual changes in classes to take in over a dozen years of the game... except for all the Dragon Magazine classes that came out all the time. Nowadays, we get at most one book a year with a lot of character options, but there is UA, 3PP, and as always homebrew. So it is never really one or the other.

[KorvinStarmast]

You know it’s weird. Not many games I can think that have a fanbase that fears power creep so much they don’t want new content. it’s just so... jarring. Like the goal is for stagnation. This isn't a video game.

@Quickly

the business model is getting four to six strangers to sit and be cooperative with each other. Not convinced that the business model has to do with strangers; AL is a small part of the business model. The generic model is that you play this game with friends.

The play model, or the conceit it is based upon, is "4-6 strangers all with different skills and talents come together to embark on adventures." Implied in that is "each player character has a role that lets him/her shine in the spotlight during play" which power creep directly detracts from.

@Willie

The positive connotation one would be Consistency. Regardless, it can be a two-pronged situation. Back in the Day (1e), the game was predominantly stable, with only UA and OA providing many actual changes in classes to take in over a dozen years of the game... except for all the Dragon Magazine classes that came out all the time. Nowadays, we get at most one book a year with a lot of character options, but there is UA, 3PP, and as always homebrew. So it is never really one or the other. Nicely said.

[Sception]

Re archeologist, could do the same for in combat applications of history as the inquisitive does for incmvestigation

My main objection is with refluffing. Fluff is built into class design. Without the nature fluff, there is little reason for druid to be a distinct class, but with that fluff druid becomes a poor substitute for a non-natury shape shifter character, which imo could have potential as a class concept.

Likewise, imo a plague cleric, something esle specifically called out as unneeded, is a concept with legs. That's something I'd like to see.

[Luccan]

A multiclass-free fighter-rogue combo (either a rogue-like fighter archtype or the reverse) would serve the non-MC groups well.

Swashbuckler Rogue? Fighter with Criminal background?

[Justin Sane]

I was going to say I wanted to see a proper Swordmage (the Bladesinger doesn't quite cut it - too much Mage, not enough Sword), but then I thought about it, and realized what I actually liked from them:

Combat teleportation. Not just the ocasional Misty Step to fix positioning mistakes - teleporting around the battlefield as a default tactic. The inspiration is obviously Nightcrawler, but I'm sure there are other examples.

[Willie the Duck]

Swashbuckler Rogue? Fighter with Criminal background?

Well, I think we have discussed to death whether everything needs to happen through the archetype/sub-class system, and I also think I've made clear that I don't think it needs to be so. However, using the archetype system is the framing of the discussion, so Criminal background would not count. But a Str/Dex combo fighter with Criminal Background and maybe Medium Armor Master feat is definitely the concept I'm thinking of. Which is what I am saying--I am surprised that no UA or the like has come out and to capture this same thing.

Swashbuckler fits the technical definition, since it is an archetype. However, they really are very much a melee rogue doing what melee rogues do most melee roguedly. There's not much fighter in the DNA of it.

Is it subjective? Of course.

[KorvinStarmast]

Swashbuckler Rogue? Fighter with Criminal background? I play a ranger with criminal background; the thieves tools proficiency is rather handy.

@Willie

But a Str/Dex combo fighter with Criminal Background and maybe Medium Armor Master feat is definitely the concept I'm thinking of I kid you not, here is the Ranger's build. vHuman. Close to what you are pointing towards.
Ranger, Criminal/Spy, Proficiencies in:
Thieves Tools, Disguise Kit, Athletics, Survival, Perception, Stealth, Deception,
S 14 D 16 C 14 I 10 W 12 Ch 9
Feat: Medium Armor Master
Fighting Style: Archery (I was very tempted to go two weapon or dueling, but chose archery due to the campaign being outdoors a lot)

Gloom Stalker

[Vogie]

I was going to say I wanted to see a proper Swordmage (the Bladesinger doesn't quite cut it - too much Mage, not enough Sword), but then I thought about it, and realized what I actually liked from them:

Combat teleportation. Not just the ocasional Misty Step to fix positioning mistakes - teleporting around the battlefield as a default tactic. The inspiration is obviously Nightcrawler, but I'm sure there are other examples.

You mean the Horizon Walker Ranger, that can blink 10 ft per attack starting at level 11 and target up to three different creatures with three different blink-attacks?

10 spell slots at level 11 doesn't make him much of a mage, though.

[Mortis_Elrod]

5e not being a video game has no bearing on whether or not you want more content. Games like Shadowrun 5e exist where its rare to find someone who doesn't want more content even if the bindings on the books are going to be trash, the table of contents is a jumbled mess, and the rest of the book is part OP broken and part actually doesn't work broken. Player base still wants the content way more than just keeping existing rules.

Thats just one example though, you could look pretty much any other game, no matter play style, and the fanbase would opt in for more content even at the risk of bad content.

Because a fanbase typically wants to see more of what they like. This may not always be true in other media but its pretty standard in any form of gaming.

I'm not saying that power creep is good. I am saying that its very weird that even the risk of it stop people from even thinking there should be any new content. 5e's slow and steady approach is perfectly fine, but just remember that it keeps moving forward. Saying everything is covered doesn't get you anywhere.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not saying that power creep is good. I am saying that its very weird that even the risk of it stop people from even thinking there should be any new content.
New content is not by definition power creep.
I like new content (as do you, apparently) when it is balanced with the old content. I dislike power creep.

Why I observe "it's not a video game" ... pace of play for a campaign. A character doesn't go from 1-to-max in a month or two in D&D. It can take a year or two, or more, to get to high level. Power creep does not fit it well at all to that progression model.

[Crgaston]

I was going to say I wanted to see a proper Swordmage (the Bladesinger doesn't quite cut it - too much Mage, not enough Sword), but then I thought about it, and realized what I actually liked from them:

Combat teleportation. Not just the ocasional Misty Step to fix positioning mistakes - teleporting around the battlefield as a default tactic. The inspiration is obviously Nightcrawler, but I'm sure there are other examples.


You mean the Horizon Walker Ranger, that can blink 10 ft per attack starting at level 11 and target up to three different creatures with three different blink-attacks?

10 spell slots at level 11 doesn't make him much of a mage, though.

There's also the relentless Hex invocation from XGtE.
Not to mention Shadow Monk.

Granted neither of those are entirely at-will, but its still a lot of teleporting 4 or 5 levels earlier than Horizon Walker, if you're impatient.

[Naanomi]

I'm not saying that power creep is good. I am saying that its very weird that even the risk of it stop people from even thinking there should be any new content. 5e's slow and steady approach is perfectly fine, but just remember that it keeps moving forward. Saying everything is covered doesn't get you anywhere.
Being overcautious about powercreep does have drawbacks, I think that is what happened to several of the SCAG subclasses that are mechanically pretty weak

[Mortis_Elrod]

I was going to say I wanted to see a proper Swordmage (the Bladesinger doesn't quite cut it - too much Mage, not enough Sword), but then I thought about it, and realized what I actually liked from them:

Combat teleportation. Not just the ocasional Misty Step to fix positioning mistakes - teleporting around the battlefield as a default tactic. The inspiration is obviously Nightcrawler, but I'm sure there are other examples.

I've tried my hardest to get a nightcrawler build in 5e. haven't tried since right before Xan's though so let me see.....
Maybe.....


Pick up all the teleporting spells. Blink is the important one. Cast Blink at start and you have minute of ending your turn mid teleport. So how you get Blink, Horizon Walker ability, and alot of attacks? most of the time your bonus action is use though Monk still might be good. Blink requires level 5 in a caster class at the least. Really hard to figure out. Ideally i still want Monk but i'd be fine with Shadow Sorcerer/HW ranger Eladrin Race.

[Naanomi]

Blink, not Far Step?

Circle of Dreams gives some teleportation as well, as does Conjurer Wizard

[Mortis_Elrod]

Blink, not Far Step?

Circle of Dreams gives some teleportation as well, as does Conjurer Wizard

Ok so yes all of this are great. Blink is essier to get than far step if I recall and blink is a defensive teleportation which is something the ranger won’t have outside his turn.

Far step is nice but probably redundant with enough movement speed+ Misty step/ haste/ blink.

Wizard is a hard mix considering it uses its action though it’s very nice spells wise.

You can’t have dreams and horizon walker abilities. Distant Strike is level 11 and is kind of the whole point.

So you Could do bladesinger for 5 levels, that’s decent and gives you the spells you want plus prepared variety of other spells. Doesn’t mix well with Dex/ Cha race like Eladrin tho and that’s your starter teleport per rest ability. Tho feral Tiefling is something to consider (flavor!!)

If you like lore bard 6 you could spend your extra spells on blink and Misty step but seems like a waste to me.

[NiklasWB]

How does Battle Master not fulfill this, particularly with the Inspiring Leader feat? (I understand the archetype ...) Maybe Purple Dragon Knight was a step toward this that forgot to take the second, third, and fourth step?

It sort of does… on paper at least... but not in actual play. You get way to few uses of Superiority Dice to feel like a strategist, and you will run out of 'tactical' steam very quickly. There are some good Maneuvers, but you will likely only get to use like three Commanding Strikes per battle, then you are just a regular old Fighter for the rest of the fight after that.

Being a 'regular' damage focused Battle Master is fine, you feel like you are doing extra damage and adding nice effects in addition to that damage. However, if you try to use Superiority Dice and Maneuvers to try to feel like a strategist, you will end up feeling frustrated, because all your juice is going into a fairly ineffective use of the action economy and your resources will drain in a matter of rounds. Purple Dragon Knight is too focused on already limited Fighter Abilities, such as Second Wind and Action Surge. You get to do these once per battle, then you are done feeling like a tactician for the rest of that fight.

Mike Mearls did a Warlord Fighter subclass in four sessions of his Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour. There he made it a long rest subclass based on the Eldritch Knight resource structure. I have to say I really liked it and it felt much more like a tactician than a Battle Master would. It had martial "cantrips", abilities that mirrored the power-level of spells, and non-magical healing. It also had a unique mechanic where you designate an area where your can use your abilities, kind of like a tactical area of focus, which felt extremely thematic. I really hope he finishes it and it becomes a full Unearthed Arcana and eventually becomes a playable subclass. You can read a transcrip of it here: https://thinkdm.wordpress.com/warlord-fighter/

I would have preferred if the Warlord was a more "at will" resource based Fighter, and I actually made a homebrew of it that you can find on DMs Guild (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/224529/Warlord-Fighter-Archetype-for-5th-edition-DD?term=warlord&test_epoch=0), but I'm also fine with Mearl's take on it since it may be easier to balance around a long rest (like most classes in the game).

[KorvinStarmast]

It sort of does… on paper at least... but not in actual play. You get way to few uses of Superiority Dice to feel like a strategist, and you will run out of 'tactical' steam very quickly. There are some good Maneuvers, but you will likely only get to use like three Commanding Strikes per battle, then you are just a regular old Fighter for the rest of the fight after that. Recharge on short rest, but I see your point. The issue I think was "resources expended" balance issues like so much else in the game.

PS: the game isn't strategic in the first place until you get to very high levels, but now I am getting all semantic so I'll stop with that. :smallcool:


Mike Mearls did a Warlord Fighter subclass in four sessions of his Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour. There he made it a long rest subclass based on the Eldritch Knight resource structure. I hope they can balance that with the basic game, sounds intriguing and perhaps a nice fit into what Purple Dragon was going to be but ultimately wasn't.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Am I the only one who thinks that being a strategist is best represented with high Int and talking at the table, not with not-magic special abilities?

[KorvinStarmast]

Am I the only one who thinks that being a strategist is best represented with high Int and talking at the table, not with not-magic special abilities? No, you are not.

Strategy is a word with some contextual meanings; you can have a business strategy, a campaign strategy, a political strategy, and more. In each case strategy has a slightly different contextual meaning.

I think that anything to do with combat in D&D during an encounter is (by default) tactical, but I may be influenced by having studied and having to apply in detail military art and science, doctrine writing, operational plans, etc ... along with other stuff as a professional in the military. In that narrow context, "strategy" and "tactics" have some particular meanings that may be a bit too stringent for more casual discussion.

[Willie the Duck]

Am I the only one who thinks that being a strategist is best represented with high Int and talking at the table, not with not-magic special abilities?

Yes, but... (and let's preemptively just clarify that battlemasters/4e warlords are emulating tactics, not strategy).. there are certain things that D&D does poorly that it is not unreasonable (even if I do not favor it) to want to represent with mechanical widgits. Movement in particular. In real world fighting, you totally can, through where the openings are, when to delay, when to move (something that otherwise works exceedingly low-resolutionally in a game where each person acts than freezes while the next figure acts), etc., control where your enemy can be, and where an opening can be such that you can move up members of your own team for advantage, etc. One of the frustrations I have with sword and board fighting in D&D is that each edition they make the advantage of being a shield expert be some sort of shield-bash, when the real primary advantage of a shield (other than it's amazing ability to preserve your safety) is how well it allows you to positionally control the placement of you and your opponent. I can totally get why someone would want special mechanics to try to emulate that kind of thought process. I just happen to think it's too far out of D&D's primary wheelhouse that all attempts I've seen and can imagine fall short.

[Sception]

Am I the only one who thinks that being a strategist is best represented with high Int and talking at the table, not with not-magic special abilities?

Sure sure, but that doesn't necesarily convey the same feel at the table when your characters actual actions in combat don't echo the concept. One could argue that the sort of magic a wizard represents would be better thematically conveyed by a pure ritual set up, but without cantrips and combat applicable spell slots the character wouldnt *feel* like much of a wizard to play. So it is with the inspiring/tactical leader concept. You can strategize all you want over the table, but if your round by round actions are still mostly swinging a sword, the feel just isnt there.

The warlord is similar to the pet master in that the concept is of a mostly non-combatant who instead fights through a middle man, the warlord through their allies and the pet master through their pet. Yes, the thematic character concept can be represented via an npc pet wolf or just role playing an especially bossy fighter, but the mechanical feel of the character, the visceral game experience, isn't there.

The fighter is probably the best, well, fighter in the party, before you even get to subclass abilities, with the best stats, the most attacks, etc. That alone undermines the desired feel before you've even started, because again, the desired character is one that has traded personal strength to improve others.

[NiklasWB]

I just wanted to point out that yes, I was thinking about tactic, and not strategy when talking about the Warlord and the Battle Master. It is actually a pet peeve of mine in my own language that people mix up tactic and strategy, so I have to kick myself a bit for typing the wrong thing when thinking about the other when replying at work. :smallsmile:

Either way, one interesting aspect that I really liked about the Mike Mearls Warlord was that you got a chance to swap out 'Tactics' (basically your set of cantrips) at every long rest, actually giving a bit more strategical depth to the subclass in addition to bein tactical after you roll initiative. Mearls even anchored this in fluff, painting a picture of the Warlord looking over maps during the long rest and studying the hypotethical terrain the party would likely encounter the next day. I really liked that idea, as it would give the Warlord a sense of being in his camp/HQ, planning and trying to figure out what stretegy to use the next coming day or days.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The fighter is probably the best, well, fighter in the party, before you even get to subclass abilities, with the best stats, the most attacks, etc. That alone undermines the desired feel before you've even started, because again, the desired character is one that has traded personal strength to improve others.

So the thing to do is to stop stapling this to the fighter class. If the desired character trades personal combat strength, why isn't it a valor bard? Or an abjuration wizard? Why does it have to be the guy who's the best at fighting but also has a bunch of spells with a goofy refresh mechanic?

Korvin, I accept the difference between strategy and tactics. I still think that, if you want to be a tactical leader, this is best accomplished by playing a character with some support abilities like Bardic Inspiration, Cutting Words, battlefield control spells or reaction abilities and working with your party to develop tactics.

Maybe this is a blind spot for me. I find the idea of a party of four containing one guy in a shiny helmet with a big feather who carries around a big tent and plans the next day's campaign faintly ridiculous.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd rather be fun at parties though.

A bit off topic, but who do you think is more fun at parties the guy complaining that there aren't enough drink choices or the guy who uses the existing drink options to mix cocktails?

[Kadesh]

A bit off topic, but who do you think is more fun at parties the guy complaining that there aren't enough drink choices or the guy who uses the existing drink options to mix cocktails?

Yes, correct, the guy making bespoke made to order stuff is the best. And if something is popular enough for it to no longer be bespoke and it to be off the shelf, then sure.

Also, the secret to havi g fun at a party is jot have it rely on thebstuff you are drinking and just be an interesting and engaging person.

Knowing how to make a Manhattan or a Trinidad Sour doesn't make you any more interesting than the guy going neat Blanco Tequila.

[Teaguethebean]

I would definitely love to have a different unarmed fighter like perhaps barbarian or fighter subclass

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think if you looking for a tactician that uses his allies for combat the Mastermind Rogue can cover that pretty well. Just being able to provide advantage every turn and still attack safely is enough to to turn battles.

And if you need more easily mcing into Battlemaster or grabbing Martial Adept to cover what you think you need.


I understand the appeal of a warlord. But I think you can certainly cover it’s niche. But I bet those that want it, won’t be satisfied until it’s got a class or subclass with the official stamp of approval on it

I would welcome it if it haplens tho. Would be fun

[UrielAwakened]

Tons of great 4e archetypes still aren't properly available, including the Warlord, the Shaman, the Runepriest, any form of Psionics, and I think the Seeker would cover a pretty great niche for throwing weapons that everyone wants. I'd also like to see a Warden: A form of Barbarian or Druid that gets transformations instead of changing into animals or rages. Sort of a hybrid between the two.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Tons of great 4e archetypes still aren't properly available, including the Warlord, the Shaman, the Runepriest, any form of Psionics, and I think the Seeker would cover a pretty great niche for throwing weapons that everyone wants. I'd also like to see a Warden: A form of Barbarian or Druid that gets transformations instead of changing into animals or rages. Sort of a hybrid between the two.

Would die to play a 5e Runepriest(proper class or subclass I think there’s plenty of design space for class. Not the prc pls)

Warden could fill that Druid subclass that gets extra attack and alternative to Wildshape. I’ve always liked the concept

Shaman i think could be a subclass in a few places. Druid does much of its thing, but with a shift in its theme slightly. Might be good on Monk though. Sort of like a much better 4E monk, with a spirit/totem/elemental theme.

[Derpaligtr]

Would die to play a 5e Runepriest(proper class or subclass I think there’s plenty of design space for class. Not the prc pls)

Warden could fill that Druid subclass that gets extra attack and alternative to Wildshape. I’ve always liked the concept

Shaman i think could be a subclass in a few places. Druid does much of its thing, but with a shift in its theme slightly. Might be good on Monk though. Sort of like a much better 4E monk, with a spirit/totem/elemental theme.

The Runepriest has so much damn potential, sadly it came way late to the party.

4e made me love the non-wildshaping druid (I stayed out of wildshape as much as possible) and I would love to see a druid subclass that just got rid of wildshaping all together. However, I think with the Warden, it would make a great Fighter (wisdom based caster) subclass.

[Rhody]

The Runepriest has so much damn potential, sadly it came way late to the party.

4e made me love the non-wildshaping druid (I stayed out of wildshape as much as possible) and I would love to see a druid subclass that just got rid of wildshaping all together. However, I think with the Warden, it would make a great Fighter (wisdom based caster) subclass.

I would also like a non wildshaping Druid. I'm not sure how they'd do it, since wildshape is a core feature of the Druid.

One thing I thought of, and this may not work for everyone, was a Druidic version of the Divine Soul, maybe like a "Fey-Born" or some such name, as a Sorcerer. It would, in a similar way to the Divine Soul, get an extra spell and get to choose between - in this case - the Druid and Sorcerer spell list. Then it would get some Fey-like/Druidic abilities like illusions, natural empathy, and self-disguise/slowed aging.

I don't know. Maybe it could work.

Although, I also want to be able to wild shape without being a Druid, too.

[Crgaston]

One thing I thought of, and this may not work for everyone, was a Druidic version of the Divine Soul, maybe like a "Fey-Born" or some such name, as a Sorcerer. It would, in a similar way to the Divine Soul, get an extra spell and get to choose between - in this case - the Druid and Sorcerer spell list. Then it would get some Fey-like/Druidic abilities like illusions, natural empathy, and self-disguise/slowed aging.


I love this!

[Rhody]

I love this!

Thanks! I appreciate that! I'm just a little unsure as to how to actually make it a thing... I would want it to be balanced and such.

[Requilac]

Would die to play a 5e Runepriest(proper class or subclass I think there’s plenty of design space for class. Not the prc pls)



I am not quite sure if this is what you are looking for, but there was a UA for the Runescribe (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Rune_Magic_Prestige_Class.pdf) published a while back. It is the only prestige class that WotC has put forward. It doesn’t actually seem to be a priority among them though so I am not sure if it will actually become official.

[Requilac]

For those of you who are saying that we don’t need any more subclasses I think that something needs to be said. When a subclass exists it is either there for thematic or mechanical reasons. While the existing content in the PHB could probably capture the mechanical side of everything, it’s not always great at supporting the theme someone is looking for. Sure, you could use the Tempest domain for clerics to represent a sort of plague domain, but that just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. You get a couple of appropriate spells, but the rest of the class features just don’t quite add up. A plague domain cleric should be able to actually cause plagues, so it’s kind of odd to say that it works when only one spell on their spell list is actually thematically appropriate and all the other class features are unrelated.

Or in short, yes you could feasibly use only PHB content which has been reflavored to emulate one of these themes, it would always be rather clunky and inconsistent with the desired theme.

_____

It seems like a lot of people here want a warlord class. That seems interesting, but isn’t it’s niche already supported by the the Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret martial archetype and Mastermind roguish archetype are for? To me it seems sort of like a bad design choice to make a class for something which is already being easily supported by pre-existing subclasses. It seems as unnecessary as making an “assassin” or “necromancer” as its own class because both of those themes are already achievable without new content,

[Rhody]

It seems like a lot of people here want a warlord class. That seems interesting, but isn’t it’s niche already supported by the the Purple Dragon Knight/Banneret martial archetype and Mastermind roguish archetype are for? To me it seems sort of like a bad design choice to make a class for something which is already being easily supported by pre-existing subclasses. It seems as unnecessary as making an “assassin” or “necromancer” as its own class because both of those themes are already achievable without new content,

I agree that the Warlord may not have to necessarily be it's own class; what I disagree with is that the Banneret and Mastermind already represent it well enough.

[Kane0]

Warlord has been discussed and brewed quite a bit. As far as I can tell there is a roughly equal split between those that prefer it as a fighter archetype (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22979639&postcount=2), those that prefer it as its own class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482261-PEACH-Warlord) and those that think it can be done just fine with what we have already (Fighter, Bard, Rogue and/or Feats).

I personally fall into the first category, but the other two offer solid arguments.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I am not quite sure if this is what you are looking for, but there was a UA for the Runescribe (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Rune_Magic_Prestige_Class.pdf) published a while back. It is the only prestige class that WotC has put forward. It doesn’t actually seem to be a priority among them though so I am not sure if it will actually become official.

I specifically do not want that. Mainly because i don't want PRCs back.