Missing Character Archetypes

[Bjarkmundur]

With 5e being pretty all-encompassing for the fantasy genre, are there any character concepts, archetypes or playstyle that you feel lack support?

How about mechanics-wise, do you feel there's a facet of fantasy that 5e doesn't do justice without third party material?

[Digimike]

5e has done a great job of covering most everything. Even if something isn't really included you can sort of make it by simply reflavoring existing options.

But here are a couple that come to mind.

Strength based Brawler.

Ninja Assassin.

Element based wizards/sorcerers with pets. Ex: Geomancer with clay golem or rock elemental. Pyromancer with fire elemental.

Trapper style Hunter. Think of the hunter from World of Warcraft. Some ranger spells like the ice and fire trap spells would go a long way to making this work.

Cloth Armored holy caster.

[Ventruenox]

They got most down, even if multiclassing is needed. If anything, certain weapon specific builds could use a feat to make them viable. Knife thrower and slings come ready to mind.

[Naanomi]

Ninja Assassin.

Cloth Armored holy caster.
Shadow Monk or Shadow Monk/Assassin multiclass?

Divine Soul Sorcerer?

[Digimike]

Shadow Monk or Shadow Monk/Assassin multiclass?

Divine Soul Sorcerer?

A shadow monk/rogue kind of fits, but the old ninja had some spells that went with it.

As for the divine soul I had something more in mind like the old Priest (not cleric). But you could reflavor it to fit a bit.

[Willie the Duck]

Overall, most of the complaints of gaps that I've seen are very specific, such as this-or-that concept from 3rd or 4th edition are hard to replicate. Still, there are some others.


Element based wizards/sorcerers with pets. Ex: Geomancer with clay golem or rock elemental. Pyromancer with fire elemental.

Unless you count re-fluffed familiars, specific petmaster build that isn't focused on undead or animals (necromancers and beastmaster rangers) has issues. I know the most recent artificer introduces a mechanical construct master as well.


They got most down, even if multiclassing is needed. If anything, certain weapon specific builds could use a feat to make them viable. Knife thrower and slings come ready to mind.

Any specific weapons-concept runs into problems, especially if you also want it to be a good choice as a combat build. An example would be clubs -- they are for str-based characters without access to martial weapon proficiency who want to be doing two-weapon-fighting … … not exactly a huge crowd. Strangely enough shield and spear has become viable for maybe the first time since oD&D, but other than that a lot of specific-weapon concepts have rather poor showings. It certainly seems to be a game that favors rapiers, greatswords, halberds, hand crossbows and longbows (otoh, AD&D was 'the bow and sword' show, and 3e was 'why does anything other than spiked chains exist?').

[Naanomi]

I see room for expansion in Warlocks... both in more patrons (Elemental/Genies? Nature Spirits?) and possibly Pact Boones (tiki mask/intimidation booster? Voodoo doll/curse enhancer?)

A ton of races not yet explored as well

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'm happy with where the classes are. I'd like to see a noncaster with Int as a secondary attribute (not hexblade-but-for-Int though). It's probably the weakest attribute and characters that want to have high intelligence without casting need something now that extra languages and skill points have been taken away. A lot of what I like has already been addressed in UAs and I'd like to see more balancing and polishing done on the phoenix and sea sorcerers and primeval guardian ranger. Eventually they'll release psionics, too, and the mechanics that they've laid out with the mystic are quite promising.

[Yunru]

There's certainly a few *cough*Warlord*cough* that are both big enough conceptually to warrant a class that are missing, but what I'd like to see most (mainly because it's a slippery one to homebrew) is a caster that treats all their spells like cantrips.

Ah who am I kidding. Warlord is the one I'm missing most. Sometimes I want to break out the 4e stuff again just so I can play my Enchanter/Warlord "lazy"lord; an 80-odd year old human who uses a cane and is completely harmless, honest.

[Bjarkmundur]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cf/03/da/cf03dae59850caa2801f62d55316786d.gif (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/234310/Base-Class-Warlord)

The hidden link is a DC 15 perception or investigation check made as a part of the search action.

[Yunru]

https://pin.it/bdmuwfx6insusu
Hi (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/234310/Base-Class-Warlord)


without third party material?
:P

Stupid must have at least blah blah blah... making me type all of this just to post a message.

[Misterwhisper]

A fighter duelist subclass

A fighting style for thrown weapons

A specific weapon specialist

[ZorroGames]

I'm happy with where the classes are. I'd like to see a noncaster with Int as a secondary attribute (not hexblade-but-for-Int though). It's probably the weakest attribute and characters that want to have high intelligence without casting need something now that extra languages and skill points have been taken away. A lot of what I like has already been addressed in UAs and I'd like to see more balancing and polishing done on the phoenix and sea sorcerers and primeval guardian ranger. Eventually they'll release psionics, too, and the mechanics that they've laid out with the mystic are quite promising.

Yes, the IN is only for Wizards school misses the IN based skills benefit least currently IMO.

[Teaguethebean]

Honestly if you wanna be a warlord in 5e yall should take a gander at the order domain cleric it fills that roll perfectly my brother is playing one who makes our swashbuckler do insane damage

[Man_Over_Game]

Blood Mage. Closest you could get is some kind of Warding Bond use with Heavy Armor Master. Life Transference kinda does this, but there's nothing that synergizes with it (and necromancers do it worse).
A Transmutation Warrior that enchants his weapons and gear with special buffs. The Eldritch Knight can kinda do this, but most of the EK's strengths are in defense.
A Warrior that uses both Dexterity and Strength.

[Tharkun]

Pure Shapeshifter. Ala Mavin Manyshaped.

[Bjarkmundur]

A Transmutation Warrior that enchants his weapons and gear with special buffs. The Eldritch Knight can kinda do this, but most of the EK's strengths are in defense.


Would swapping spell list do the trick (as suggested in the DMG)? or are you thinking more along the lines of a class/subclass dedicated to the concept?

I'm doing a continued discussion for this thread over at the Homebrew Forum if you're interested.

[Karnitis]

You can take my suggestion with a heavy grain of salt as Sorlock seems repetitive/boring to me. I like wizard as a INT-based, dedicated scholar. I like bard as a CHA-based caster who just kind of fell into magic. Sorlock (mechanically, not thematically) overuses CHA and makes multi-classing a gimme even when it shouldn't necessarily make sense thematically.

So with that said, I want a CON-based caster and a 2nd INT caster (Artificer kind of counts, but its UA not official). Wisdom gets Druid/Cleric, Charisma should get Bard/Warlock, Constitution *should* be Sorcerer and then Intelligence gets its share of half casters (EK, AT).

I also want an Elementalist - like an Evoker/Four Elements monk combo yes I want the Avatar what of it. Someone who specifically gets boosts for using fire/ice/thunder/etc spells, but it bulkier than a wizard. So...druid, but without the requirement of a nature-focus or Wildshape.

[Max_Killjoy]

With 5e being pretty all-encompassing for the fantasy genre,


I'd seriously question this assertion. D&D-the-system does D&D-like settings... it's nothing like a broad coverage of the fantasy genre.

There are a plethora of setting concepts, progression patterns, character types, etc, that it doesn't really cover.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

You can take my suggestion with a heavy grain of salt as Sorlock seems repetitive/boring to me. I like wizard as a INT-based, dedicated scholar. I like bard as a CHA-based caster who just kind of fell into magic. Sorlock (mechanically, not thematically) overuses CHA and makes multi-classing a gimme even when it shouldn't necessarily make sense thematically.

So with that said, I want a CON-based caster and a 2nd INT caster (Artificer kind of counts, but its UA not official). Wisdom gets Druid/Cleric, Charisma should get Bard/Warlock, Constitution *should* be Sorcerer and then Intelligence gets its share of half casters (EK, AT).

I also want an Elementalist - like an Evoker/Four Elements monk combo yes I want the Avatar what of it. Someone who specifically gets boosts for using fire/ice/thunder/etc spells, but it bulkier than a wizard. So...druid, but without the requirement of a nature-focus or Wildshape.

I think there's an understandable reluctance to put HP and one of the best saving throws and casting on the same stat.

The elementalist might (maybe, one day) be covered by the wu-jen mystic subclass, which has at-will elemental damage and many other elemental effects.

[Spiritchaser]

A melee controller/de buffer. Conquest paladin does this, and does it well, but it lives in a very narrow conceptual space, and there’s lots of mechanical room for variations on this play style as well.

An arcane half caster Gish. This will likely be the battle smith.

[TyGuy]

A specific weapon specialist
The ball was dropped so hard with kensei that it's not even considered a poorly implemented weapon specialist.

There's a feat, but not much of a cohesive anti-mage archetype option.

There are archetypes that can get by with what's available, but don't have support to be mechanically great or completely true to theme. Like the dual wield berserker.

[Yunru]

The ball was dropped so hard with kensei that it's not even considered a poorly implemented weapon specialist.

It gets better if you let Flurry of Blows and Martial Art's bonus action attacks work with Monk weapons, not just unarmed strikes.

Not a whole let better, but at least you're on par with the regular Monk and using your weapon of choice.

Something else I do for all Monks that would also work for just Kensei is allowing improvised weapons to be Monk weapons.

[Man_Over_Game]

Would swapping spell list do the trick (as suggested in the DMG)? or are you thinking more along the lines of a class/subclass dedicated to the concept?

I'm doing a continued discussion for this thread over at the Homebrew Forum if you're interested.

I'll respond to this thread, for now, so that links on the homebrew page get more visibility.

I'd say that replacing Abjuration and Evocation with Transmutation and Conjuration would work perfectly.

What the Eldritch Knight does naturally is add some teleportation and mix in attacks with his spells. The problem is, Evocation doesn't really add anything to that concept (and doesn't scale well with the Eldritch Knight), and the Abjuration spells don't actually help the Eldritch Knight as much as they help literally ANY Fighter.

It doesn't feel like a subclass with features. It feels like a Fighter with Shield and Absorb Elements. Replace the defensive aspects with some really cool mobility/control ones, and I'd bet you see Eldritch Knights being more than a generic Fighter with high defenses.

To give some insight as to what I mean, here are the Wizard spells for Transmutation and Conjuration:

Level 1:

Grease
Unseen Servant
Floating Disk
Unseen Servant
Fog Cloud
Feather Fall
Expeditious Retreat
Longstrider
Jump



Level 2:

Flaming Sphere
Misty Step
Web
Darkvision
Enlarge/Reduce
Alter Self
Knock
Levitate
Magic Weapon
Rope Trick
Spider Climb



Level 3:

Sleet Storm
Stinking Cloud
Water Breathing
Gaseous Form
Fly
Haste
Blink
Slow



To give you a comparison, here are the Wizar's Evocation/Abjuration spells that don't use a saving throw:

Level 1:

Magic Missile
Alarm
Mage Armor
Shield
Protection from Evil and Good



Level 2:

Arcane Lock
Darkness
Continual Flame



Level 3:

Dispel Magic
Counterspell
Remove Curse
Protection From Energy
Magic Circle
Sending
Major Image



I just want to point out how dull that list is. A bunch of slow, non-combat abilities, countermagic, and a couple defensive spells. That's..about it. That's the core of the Eldritch Knight, ladies and gentlemen.

Changing the spell list for the Eldritch Knight is enough of an overhaul that you wouldn't need to do anything else.

[LtPowers]

A religion-themed bard. A pugilist. A shaman. A warlord. A friend-to-all-animals. Luck-domain cleric.

Maybe even racial cleric domains.


Powers &8^]

[Anderlith]

So far there is no

Factotum (but there is no real need for it)
Warlord (the newer rules & subclass options we’ve been seeing lately tell me that this could soon be a proper subclass of the fighter)
Divine Rogue (as of yet we have no assassins of god, either as a Cleric option or Rogue option)
Ranger (still waiting on this core class to get rules)
The Old D&D Next Sorcerer (this was a fantastic class & had a really cool idea, maybe they could call it “Binder” if it didn’t step too much on its toes)
Psion (but it’s underway)

[Naanomi]

A fighter duelist subclass
A DEX-based Battlemaster?

A religion-themed bard.
A Glamour Bard with the Acolyte background?

A shaman.
An outlander/hermit Druid (or Warlock?)

Background can do a lot with existing classes to ‘create’ concepts

[Yunru]

An outlander/hermit Druid (or Warlock?)

Background can do a lot with existing classes to ‘create’ concepts

Druid as a shaman only really works at higher levels. There's just not the spells (/spell slots) for it at lower levels.

[Man_Over_Game]

Druid as a shaman only really works at higher levels. There's just not the spells (/spell slots) for it at lower levels.

I guess that depends on what you call a "shaman".

A Swamp Land Druid might fit what you're looking for pretty well. Even comes with additional spell slots.

[Naanomi]

Druid as a shaman only really works at higher levels. There's just not the spells (/spell slots) for it at lower levels.
I guess I don’t have a good concept of what you mean by Shaman...

[Kyutaru]

It's missing Mutant/Superhero. For whatever reason be it science or an accident or intentional drug overdoses, you now have weird innate abilities. Instead of a spell list, they just pick from passive powers and at-wills from a list of appropriately themed stuff. Things like Flight, Heat Vision, Super Speed, etc.

Effectively it's the create-your-own-monster class that turns players into a regenerating claw user, a laser-firing bird-plane, or someone that somehow is faster than a monk. The more experience they get developing their innate gifts, the more gifts they develop. The martial Sorcerer.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's missing Mutant/Superhero. For whatever reason be it science or an accident or intentional drug overdoses, you now have weird innate abilities. Instead of a spell list, they just pick from passive powers and at-wills from a list of appropriately themed stuff. Things like Flight, Heat Vision, Super Speed, etc.

Effectively it's the create-your-own-monster class that turns players into a regenerating claw user, a laser-firing bird-plane, or someone that somehow is faster than a monk. The more experience they get developing their innate gifts, the more gifts they develop. The martial Sorcerer.

To be fair, that wouldn't even be that hard to do with Warlock. Darkvision and "natural armor" are things you can get at level 2. Reskin Eldritch Blast to be tentacles, and you've got yourself a pretty cool concept.

[Naanomi]

It's missing Mutant/Superhero. For whatever reason be it science or an accident or intentional drug overdoses, you now have weird innate abilities. Instead of a spell list, they just pick from passive powers and at-wills from a list of appropriately themed stuff. Things like Flight, Heat Vision, Super Speed, etc.

Effectively it's the create-your-own-monster class that turns players into a regenerating claw user, a laser-firing bird-plane, or someone that somehow is faster than a monk. The more experience they get developing their innate gifts, the more gifts they develop. The martial Sorcerer.
One of the sorcerer backstory options in XGtE was 'expirimented on by a wizard'

[Kyutaru]

To be fair, that wouldn't even be that hard to do with Warlock. Darkvision and "natural armor" are things you can get at level 2. Reskin Eldritch Blast to be tentacles, and you've got yourself a pretty cool concept.

One of the sorcerer backstory options in XGtE was 'expirimented on by a wizard'
Though main reason I mention it as "The martial Sorcerer" is I want this to all be innate abilities along the lines of Extraordinary or Monk-style Supernaturals. A guy who doesn't actually use magic and just has a weird body like Monkey D Luffy.

[djreynolds]

A fighter duelist subclass

A fighting style for thrown weapons

A specific weapon specialist



Blood Mage. Closest you could get is some kind of Warding Bond use with Heavy Armor Master. Life Transference kinda does this, but there's nothing that synergizes with it (and necromancers do it worse).
A Transmutation Warrior that enchants his weapons and gear with special buffs. The Eldritch Knight can kinda do this, but most of the EK's strengths are in defense.
A Warrior that uses both Dexterity and Strength.


These are very good.

I'd like an elemental EK

I would like a combo of dexterity and strength. The hexblade can do this with just 1 stat

Give a reason for a fighter to have a high charisma, and not to just multiclass into paladin.

[Jerrykhor]

A class that uses HP or hit dice as a resource, like a Blood Mage from Dragon Age or Huskar from Dota.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A class that uses HP or hit dice as a resource, like a Blood Mage from Dragon Age or Huskar from Dota.

I'm playing a Redemption Paladin and HP/HD is my most used resource. I slapped a Periapt of Wound Closure on me and BAM, Hit Dice master. The only thing I'm missing is an ability to spend them in battle (unfortunately not a Dwarf, Dwarven Fortitude would be a dream) and Life Transference.

And the obligatory mention of Blood Hunter, although not official, being an "officially supported" homebrew option. The Bloodhunter I built is themed as a Bloodmage with a wizard multiclass.

As for what I think is lacking, a Roguish Archetype focused on incapacitation and subterfuge. Someone who could use planted poisons or stun enemies with blunt weapons. Currently the Arcane Trickster is the best Rogue for legerdemain and I'd like to see a more focused version where Sleight of Hand can be a viable combat skill.

[KyleG]

What about some sort of Eco Warrior, an Intelligent Druid. A scientist at heart just trying to preserve the natural world.
Or a paladin less focused on spreading the word (Cha) and more on enacting his tenets (perhaps wisdom, or double down on strength focused)

[Digimike]

So far there is no
Divine Rogue (as of yet we have no assassins of god, either as a Cleric option or Rogue option)


I actually built this very thing and was ridiculously good.

You take 3-5 levels of rogue and go vengeance paladin for the rest. The synergy is fantastic with Vow of Emnity and the spell list that the Vengeance Paladin gets. (Hunter's Mark, Hold Person, Misty Step, Haste). The main thing is you want to take the assassin for the Assassinate feature.

All your hits autocrit when you get the drop on an opponent, with Sneak Attack and smites doing double damage dice it's a hell of a satisfying surprise round. Hold person applies the paralyzed condition on humanoids too. Check this out...

"A paralyzed creature is incapacitated (see the condition) and can’t move or speak.
The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity Saving Throws.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
Any Attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature."

Again this is just gravy.

The only real question is just how far into rogue you want to go. But even at level 6 (3 rogue, 3 paladin) You're way ahead of the power curve.

[Witty Username]

Master Poisoner. I want to use poisoned blades gosh darn-it.
There are alot of classes in 3.X so their are bound to be a few darkhorses for everyone that played that.
Is the Shadow Weave still a thing at all? I miss shadow adept, but it wasn't that different from being an illusionist.

[Teaguethebean]

It's missing Mutant/Superhero.
*Snip*
I feel like this entire concept just would feel so out of place in dnd it is like rolling up to a shadowrun game but you are a talking cat man it just doesn't fit unless you try really hard.
Edit: My previous example sucked.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I feel like this entire concept just would feel so out of place in dnd it is like rolling up to a world of darkness game but you are a talking cat man it just doesn't fit unless you try really hard.

There's an entire game system built around that concept because it's broad enough to be its own thing. I agree though, I can't imagine rolling up to a dungeon with Grok the Barbarian, Talzar the Warlock and Captain Eyebeam.

Although, you could make a viable argument for Captain Eyebeam being a new breed of beholder spawn

[Naanomi]

There's an entire game system built around that concept because it's broad enough to be its own thing. I agree though, I can't imagine rolling up to a dungeon with Grok the Barbarian, Talzar the Warlock and Captain Eyebeam.
DnD doesn’t attempt to be a universal system; it does... well... a certain flavor of fantasy that is basically just ‘d&d’ now... and doesn’t make claims to do much else

I prefer Hero system for my ‘actually can do anything’ system

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

There's an entire game system built around that concept because it's broad enough to be its own thing. I agree though, I can't imagine rolling up to a dungeon with Grok the Barbarian, Talzar the Warlock and Captain Eyebeam.

Although, you could make a viable argument for Captain Eyebeam being a new breed of beholder spawn

I dunno, I feel like Captain Eyebeam is a pretty reasonable way to fluff a dude spamming eldritch blast or the mystic chromatic damage cantrip, which is specifically a line that only hits one target. Some of the mystic schools aren't that far off approximating superhuman/superhero, except for the requirement that it all function in an antimagic field.

Superheroes aren't that weird in DnD. Extraordinary powers? Tick. Elaborate costumes? Tick. Possessing of odd manners, exemption from normal rules of behavior and often extreme wealth? Tick, tick, tick. It's just that we call them something else in a fantasy or science fiction context.

[Witty Username]

come to think of it, battle sorcerer is a bit complex at the moment if you have multi-classing problems. bladesinger and eldritch knight cover int based arcane gish pretty well, but cha arcane gish if you are not hexblade can get rather frustrating. bard has a couple solutions, but sorcerer does not at the moment.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I dunno, I feel like Captain Eyebeam is a pretty reasonable way to fluff a dude spamming eldritch blast or the mystic chromatic damage cantrip, which is specifically a line that only hits one target. Some of the mystic schools aren't that far off approximating superhuman/superhero, except for the requirement that it all function in an antimagic field.

Superheroes aren't that weird in DnD. Extraordinary powers? Tick. Elaborate costumes? Tick. Possessing of odd manners, exemption from normal rules of behavior and often extreme wealth? Tick, tick, tick. It's just that we call them something else in a fantasy or science fiction context.

As long as the fluff is distinctly "DND" I can work with it. I don't think the archetype is necessarily absent either. Between Racial choices and already existing class features you could create passable copies of most superheroes already.

I guess, to be more specific, my issue would be with the sourcing of the "superhero" powers. What facilitates the need for your "superhero" powers to come from something other than innate magic in your blood (sorcerer) or an outside influence (Cleric, Warlock) or your strong will to do good (Paladin).

Printed character classes assume at least a little in terms of a default setting, and "mutant/superhero" doesn't jump out as being in that wheelhouse.

[Joe the Rat]

While I get the restricted schools on thematic reasons, opening up EK and AT to any two schools (or even 1 fixed, 1 open) would cover a LOT of concepts.


I feel like this entire concept just would feel so out of place in dnd it is like rolling up to a world of darkness game but you are a talking cat man it just doesn't fit unless you try really hard.

Bastet. There's like four or five flavors of cat man in there.

[Kyutaru]

I feel like this entire concept just would feel so out of place in dnd it is like rolling up to a world of darkness game but you are a talking cat man it just doesn't fit unless you try really hard.

Talking cat man? Have you met Druids?

[Constructman]

Talking cat man? Have you met Druids?

In a World of Darkness Game? Because that's almost as ridiculous as the talking cat man.

[Daithi]

A witch and her coven in good, neutral, and evil varieties.

Also, maybe some kind of city based druid.

[Kyutaru]

In a World of Darkness Game? Because that's almost as ridiculous as the talking cat man.
Mage: the Awakening

[Witty Username]

A witch and her coven in good, neutral, and evil varieties.

Also, maybe some kind of city based druid.

Would a witch be a subclass or a full class do you think? I think a subclass of warlock or druid would be fitting.

Circle of the homestead? Circle of Community? Circle of the cobblestones?
maybe some abilities that involve social interaction.
Maybe an Urban Ranger to go along with.

[Mjolnirbear]

Would a witch be a subclass or a full class do you think? I think a subclass of warlock or druid would be fitting.

Circle of the homestead? Circle of Community? Circle of the cobblestones?
maybe some abilities that involve social interaction.
Maybe an Urban Ranger to go along with.

A witch has a familiar in my headcanon, and curses are more à warlock thing, so I'd go warlock. Or alchemist artificer. À witch doesn't do very much that's so unique it requires its own class. Definitely a subclass, possibly subclasses.

I'd want a storm druid. We have nature red in tooth and claw, nature spirits, nature Fey, and mountain/plains/rivers nature. But no storm.

I'm thinking a use-wildshape-to-do-something mechanic. Enrobe your fists with lightning? Could also do a lightning substitution ability so you can have lightning thorn whips.

An int-based non-caster, although there's a lot in homebrew.

For an avatar-type elementalist, I'd rebuild four-elements to include cantrips.

A binder or spiritualist is missing. The problem is the lack of spirits, unless you count elementals and fey or fiends and celestials. At best, such a class would involve adding dozens of creatures.

[Naanomi]

Witch seems more like a background to me... a hermit-type where you learn group ritual casting as your secret; or an acolyte-like ‘the coven will take care of you’ sort of thing

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, "witch" is more of a background or "social role" -- and depending on other factors, that character could be a Druid, a Cleric, a Sorcerer, a Warlock...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, "witch" is more of a background or "social role" -- and depending on other factors, that character could be a Druid, a Cleric, a Sorcerer, a Warlock...

Same with shaman. I tend to peg the more nature-y witches as druids (or maybe very particular wizards), while the more curse-y witches as warlocks. Shamans tend to either be a bard or a druid, sometimes a cleric or a warlock.

[NatureKing]

There is a distinct lack of 'the big guy is with me' builds.

[Shriketalon]

1) Warlord. Martial character with a huge list of maneuvers, martial dice which increase with levels to spend on those maneuvers, and synergy with Intelligence (tactics and positioning), Wisdom (finding weaknesses/foiling enemies), and Charisma (rallying your team to push beyond their limits).

2) Summoner/Binder. 5e is really, really weird about conjuring monsters, declaring it way too powerful for 1st and 2nd level spells to conjure a beastie, but perfectly fine to summon twelve panthers with a 3rd level spell. A "Me and My Monster" class would be lovely. Speaking of....

3) Monster. Kyutaru talked about a mutant/superhero, but I think this would be better pushed in a different direction, a build-your-own-beast class to represent heroes who are monsters. Make it invocation focused like the warlock, but instead of centering around spells, it's about supernatural abilities. Want a werewolf character? Go with the Transformation subclass and pick up natural attacks, regeneration, and athleticism for your transformation. Want a medusa? Pick up the invocation that allows you to daze with a gaze, then increase its power to stun, then petrify. Want a vampire? Undead subclass (watch out for the penalties that come with it!) + mist form + health drain invocations.

4) Psion. They're working on that. Slowly.

5) Divine rogue, city ranger, beastrider ranger, beastrider barbarian, grappling/wrestling barbarian, psionic barbarian (rage that breaks reality), psionic fighter, strength based monks, intelligence monks, charismatic monks, anything but DEX/WIS monk. Alternate warlock pacts (Pact of the Mask, Pact of the Brand, Pact of the Blood, etc) that focus on transformation, possession, monstrosity, etc.

6) Martial options beyond GWM, Polearm Mastery, and Crossbow mastery. It's been years. Why is there still no mechanical difference between an axe and a sword?

There should be a Sword Mastery, Axe Mastery, Impact Mastery, Throwing Weapon Mastery, Bow Mastery, Dagger Mastery, Simple Weapon Mastery, etc. Give us a reason to care about something that isn't a polearm, greatsword, or hand crossbow.

[Witty Username]

I believe you forgot shield master and sharpshooter.

[KyleG]

3) Monster. Kyutaru talked about a mutant/superhero, but I think this would be better pushed in a different direction, a build-your-own-beast class to represent heroes who are monsters. Make it invocation focused like the warlock, but instead of centering around spells, it's about supernatural abilities. Want a werewolf character? Go with the Transformation subclass and pick up natural attacks, regeneration, and athleticism for your transformation. Want a medusa? Pick up the invocation that allows you to daze with a gaze, then increase its power to stun, then petrify. Want a vampire? Undead subclass (watch out for the penalties that come with it!) + mist form + health drain invocations.

5) Divine rogue,

6) Martial options beyond GWM, Polearm Mastery, and Crossbow mastery. It's been years. Why is there still no mechanical difference between an axe and a sword?


All great points.
3) let me be a werewolf, hell yeah
5) im going to make silas from the divinci code now
6)not to mention whats the difference between a scimatar and a shortsword (damage type only) , warpick and morningstar. And surely we need something more for whip or net, and even between dagger and dart.

[8wGremlin]

1) Warlord. Martial character with a huge list of maneuvers, martial dice which increase with levels to spend on those maneuvers, and synergy with Intelligence (tactics and positioning), Wisdom (finding weaknesses/foiling enemies), and Charisma (rallying your team to push beyond their limits).

2) Summoner/Binder. 5e is really, really weird about conjuring monsters, declaring it way too powerful for 1st and 2nd level spells to conjure a beastie, but perfectly fine to summon twelve panthers with a 3rd level spell. A "Me and My Monster" class would be lovely. Speaking of....

3) Monster. Kyutaru talked about a mutant/superhero, but I think this would be better pushed in a different direction, a build-your-own-beast class to represent heroes who are monsters. Make it invocation focused like the warlock, but instead of centering around spells, it's about supernatural abilities. Want a werewolf character? Go with the Transformation subclass and pick up natural attacks, regeneration, and athleticism for your transformation. Want a medusa? Pick up the invocation that allows you to daze with a gaze, then increase its power to stun, then petrify. Want a vampire? Undead subclass (watch out for the penalties that come with it!) + mist form + health drain invocations.

4) Psion. They're working on that. Slowly.

5) Divine rogue, city ranger, beastrider ranger, beastrider barbarian, grappling/wrestling barbarian, psionic barbarian (rage that breaks reality), psionic fighter, strength based monks, intelligence monks, charismatic monks, anything but DEX/WIS monk. Alternate warlock pacts (Pact of the Mask, Pact of the Brand, Pact of the Blood, etc) that focus on transformation, possession, monstrosity, etc.

6) Martial options beyond GWM, Polearm Mastery, and Crossbow mastery. It's been years. Why is there still no mechanical difference between an axe and a sword?

There should be a Sword Mastery, Axe Mastery, Impact Mastery, Throwing Weapon Mastery, Bow Mastery, Dagger Mastery, Simple Weapon Mastery, etc. Give us a reason to care about something that isn't a polearm, greatsword, or hand crossbow.


Sign me up for all of these.

[Zevox]

The big one for me is Psionics. Yes, there's the Mystic in Unearthed Arcana form, but I'm not entirely pleased with that. They seem to be trying to cram too many different things together there for my liking, not only trying to make one class that encompasses both caster-style Psions and more martial-style Psychic Warriors and Soul Knives, but throwing in random things like the Wu Jen, which was arcane magic before. Ideally I want to see at least two different classes for Psionics, to encompass the caster and martial styles - or possibly one class for the caster style and split the more martial ones up into subclasses for other existing classes, like Psychic Warrior for Fighters, Soul Knife for Rogue, maybe Slayer for Ranger or Psionic Fist for Monk, that sort of thing.

Also, whatever the final class(es) may be, they could use a name that actually sounds like it belongs to a psychic class, not something as generic as "Mystic," please.

[8wGremlin]

The big one for me is Psionics. Yes, there's the Mystic in Unearthed Arcana form, but I'm not entirely pleased with that. They seem to be trying to cram too many different things together there for my liking, not only trying to make one class that encompasses both caster-style Psions and more martial-style Psychic Warriors and Soul Knives, but throwing in random things like the Wu Jen, which was arcane magic before. Ideally I want to see at least two different classes for Psionics, to encompass the caster and martial styles - or possibly one class for the caster style and split the more martial ones up into subclasses for other existing classes, like Psychic Warrior for Fighters, Soul Knife for Rogue, maybe Slayer for Ranger or Psionic Fist for Monk, that sort of thing.

Also, whatever the final class(es) may be, they could use a name that actually sounds like it belongs to a psychic class, not something as generic as "Mystic," please.


Pity, because I'm completely the opposite of this statement. I like the Mystic, its versatility, and it's play style, having played them in a few campaigns now.
Yes, some of the powers need a tweak, and there are some obvious holes, but on the whole, I like it.

[Teaguethebean]

Pity, because I'm completely the opposite of this statement. I like the Mystic, its versatility, and it's play style, having played them in a few campaigns now.
Yes, some of the powers need a tweak, and there are some obvious holes, but on the whole, I like it.

Bad news the reason it is so fun is because it is better at everything than every other class bar cross world teleportation. It is so OP they scrapped it entirely. My brother loved the class but after a 6 month campaign of him playing one we decided to no longer allow it at our table.
Barbarian<Immortal
Bard<Avatar/Nomad
Cleric<Avatar
Druid<Immortal with some Wu Jen disciplines
Fighter<Immortal
Monk<Soulknife
Paladin<Avatar
Ranger<Nomad
Rogue<Nomad
Sorcerer<Wu Jen
Warlock<Awakened
Wizard<Wu Jen

[Tallytrev813]

I wish 5e had a "Blood Magic" kind of Warlock.

You know, like a Warlock in Hearthstone (WOW), or a Blood Mage in Dragon Age.

The idea of the class is, you sacrifice your life force for casting power. Spells cost health, or harm you in some way - but do awesome things. Normally, this class also has a manner of siphoning life from enemies.

Always felt 5e lacked this type of caster.

[JackPhoenix]

There's a difference between genuinely missing archetypes ("blood mage", dedicated summoner, not just a spellcaster who can do some summoning in addition to all other stuff), archetypes that can already achieved through various means, but people complain because they don't get the *exact specific ability they want* (warlord, gish), archetypes that aren't archetypes but just a specific mechanical gimmick that doesn't have any merit otherwise (Cha-based monk, anything specific to a different edition), and things that just don't fit with the game (superheroes, W40k Space Marine out to purge all the xenos, mutants and heretics that fill your average D&D setting).

[ProsecutorGodot]

There's a difference between genuinely missing archetypes ("blood mage", dedicated summoner, not just a spellcaster who can do some summoning in addition to all other stuff), archetypes that can already achieved through various means, but people complain because they don't get the *exact specific ability they want* (warlord, gish), archetypes that aren't archetypes but just a specific mechanical gimmick that doesn't have any merit otherwise (Cha-based monk, anything specific to a different edition), and things that just don't fit with the game (superheroes, W40k Space Marine out to purge all the xenos, mutants and heretics that fill your average D&D setting).

That's more what I was trying to communicate when the Superhero/Mutant discussion came up.

[suplee215]

A grappling monk. While one could in theory play a strength monk even then I feel like a monk especially built around holds and stuff is one of the key ideas of the modern perception of martial arts (UFC type stuff).

[Constructman]

A grappling monk. While one could in theory play a strength monk even then I feel like a monk especially built around holds and stuff is one of the key ideas of the modern perception of martial arts (UFC type stuff).

Grappling checks auto-succeee against stunned opponents as of the latest errata. Get your monk Athletics proficiency, Stunning Strike your target, and then put them in an armbar.

[Yunru]

archetypes that can already achieved through various means, but people complain because they don't get the *exact specific ability they want* (warlord)

Go on then, point out how you can already be an effective warlord.

[JackPhoenix]

Go on then, point out how you can already be an effective warlord.

Sure.

Rogue 3 (Mastermind). You can now use Help as a bonus action and with 30' range. I recommend to start as a rogue for extra proficiencies, but it's not necessary. Expertise in social skill fits the role.
Fighter 3+ (Battlemaster). Purple Dragon Knight fits the role too, but Maneuvers is what you want. Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike (though you can already do similar thing with Help), Maneuvering Attack, Rally are the big ones, but others are useful too. You may want Martial Adept for extra superiority die and 2 more maneuvers known. If you want to defend your allies better, you may pick Protection Fighting Style.
If you don't mind refluffing and adding magic to the mix, Bard (Lore) works. What you're looking for is Bardic Inspiration, of course, but Cutting Words from lore and certain spells (Healing Word, Heroism... buffs, generally) are a nice bonus. I would recommend to go for level 5, so Inspiration recharges on short rest with the fighter's abilities.

Inspiring Leader is almost mandatory in any case. Healer for non-magical healing is nice, but not necessary.

Pure bard or Order domain cleric builds also work.

But wait, you're looking for *exact specific ability*, right?

[Yunru]

Sure.

Rogue 3 (Mastermind). You can now use Help as a bonus action and with 30' range. I recommend to start as a rogue for extra proficiencies, but it's not necessary. Expertise in social skill fits the role.
Fighter 3+ (Battlemaster). Purple Dragon Knight fits the role too, but Maneuvers is what you want. Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike (though you can already do similar thing with Help), Maneuvering Attack, Rally are the big ones, but others are useful too. You may want Martial Adept for extra superiority die and 2 more maneuvers known. If you want to defend your allies better, you may pick Protection Fighting Style.
If you don't mind refluffing and adding magic to the mix, Bard (Lore) works. What you're looking for is Bardic Inspiration, of course, but Cutting Words from lore and certain spells (Healing Word, Heroism... buffs, generally) are a nice bonus. I would recommend to go for level 5, so Inspiration recharges on short rest with the fighter's abilities.

Inspiring Leader is almost mandatory in any case. Healer for non-magical healing is nice, but not necessary.

Pure bard or Order domain cleric builds also work.

But wait, you're looking for *exact specific ability*, right?

So what I'm seeing is at-will help (great at levels 1-4, then tappers off), and some very limited ability to grant attacks.
That's not a Warlord. That's not even a poor man's Warlord.

As I thought, it's not that it exists but not in "exact specific ability", it's that even getting close to specific abilities is sub-par at best, and outright impossible at worst.

Come back to me when you've something that doesn't peter out after the first combat.

[Naanomi]

So what I'm seeing is at-will help (great at levels 1-4, then tappers off), and some very limited ability to grant attacks.
That's not a Warlord. That's not even a poor man's Warlord.

As I thought, it's not that it exists but not in "exact specific ability", it's that even getting close to specific abilities is sub-par at best, and outright impossible at worst.

Come back to me when you've something that doesn't peter out after the first combat.
Right, you want something specific *mechanically*... conceptually there are a few ways to be a battlefield commander (Valor Bard with a soldier background springs to mind), but it doesn’t fit the mechanics you want

[Yunru]

Right, you want something specific *mechanically*... conceptually there are a few ways to be a battlefield commander (Valor Bard with a soldier background springs to mind), but it doesn’t fit the mechanics you want

If you call "enabling" specific, sure. In the same way that "casts spells" or "heals" is specific.

[ZorroGames]

I fight it fascinating that so many of these so-called missing archetypes are an effort to import designs from other games that seem to be overpowered in 5e power terms. And come from older editions or other games where the design parameters are significantly different.

Only a few seem to be 5e compatible without “controversial” mechanics changes.

[Spiritchaser]

I fight it fascinating that so many of these so-called missing archetypes are an effort to import designs from other games that seem to be overpowered in 5e power terms. And come from older editions or other games where the design parameters are significantly different.

Only a few seem to be 5e compatible without “controversial” mechanics changes.

I’m not so sure, can you cite a specific case (or a few) where you feel this applies?

I tend to think that it’s possible to balance most things.

Always worth the effort? Ok definitely not...

But usually possible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I’m not so sure, can you cite a specific case (or a few) where you feel this applies?

I tend to think that it’s possible to balance most things.

Always worth the effort? Ok definitely not...

But usually possible.

I'd say summoners (or dedicated pet classes in general). It's really hard to balance an extra set of actions. I tried building one and ran into serious issues. Either the master is basically useless or the pet is, with only a knife edge between them. And that tiny balance point is very situation dependent and elusive.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

archetypes that aren't archetypes but just a specific mechanical gimmick that doesn't have any merit otherwise (Cha-based monk

Archetypes do need to be supported with at least minimal mechanics, and 'smart person who isn't a spellcaster' isn't exactly a rare thing in fantasy. Because some of the old uses for Int have been removed and there isn't a class that supports Int for low-magic characters, Int is a dump stat for most characters. Generally, though, the characters that are the basis for most fantasy archetypes are pretty smart. Moving abilities from desirable attributes (Wis, Dex) to less desirable ones can open up space for interesting characters with minimal risk of power creep.

(I know you called out Cha-based monks, which is a bad idea, but it's not a huge leap from that to Int-based ranger or whatever.)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'd say summoners (or dedicated pet classes in general). It's really hard to balance an extra set of actions. I tried building one and ran into serious issues. Either the master is basically useless or the pet is, with only a knife edge between them. And that tiny balance point is very situation dependent and elusive.

An example of this tension is in most discussions of level 6 Magical Secret picks for lore bards. Conjure animals is often mentioned as a very strong option, but there's also almost always a story or two about how much the DM hates dealing with it or has banned it retroactively.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Archetypes do need to be supported with at least minimal mechanics, and 'smart person who isn't a spellcaster' isn't exactly a rare thing in fantasy. Because some of the old uses for Int have been removed and there isn't a class that supports Int for low-magic characters, Int is a dump stat for most characters. Generally, though, the characters that are the basis for most fantasy archetypes are pretty smart. Moving abilities from desirable attributes (Wis, Dex) to less desirable ones can open up space for interesting characters with minimal risk of power creep.

(I know you called out Cha-based monks, which is a bad idea, but it's not a huge leap from that to Int-based ranger or whatever.)

One interesting fact from my experience is that INT is the least likely non-primary stat to be dumped. I think I might have had 1 (if that) PC in any of my groups for the last 3 years that put the 8 into INT. It's always 10 or 11 or better.

Of course I either use rolled stats (rarely) or the standard array, and none of my players are mechanically-focused.

[Naanomi]

Summoner is a broad concept that can be played... but not at low levels, the mechanics that make it work are all mid or high level. Finding some balanced low-level summoning spells are what is needed, not necessarily a new class

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd say summoners (or dedicated pet classes in general). It's really hard to balance an extra set of actions. I tried building one and ran into serious issues. Either the master is basically useless or the pet is, with only a knife edge between them. And that tiny balance point is very situation dependent and elusive.

There's a challenge -- make the WOW-style Warlock, with its demon bodyguards, work in D&D.

(Of course, it's been years since I've played, they really drove that game down a bad path, so who knows what the class is like now.)

[Spiritchaser]

I'd say summoners (or dedicated pet classes in general). It's really hard to balance an extra set of actions. I tried building one and ran into serious issues. Either the master is basically useless or the pet is, with only a knife edge between them. And that tiny balance point is very situation dependent and elusive.

Where this balances most easily is where the character has a single, (preferably persistent) pet. The beast master gets a lot of flack for being excessively limited by its action economy, but it’s really just a bit of tuning away from being workable.

If pet class is required to include a great many pets, then I’d agree it gets quite a lot harder

Quite apart from the fact that, independent of balance, large numbers of minions can simply be unpleasant to DM.

[Spiritchaser]

There's a challenge -- make the WOW-style Warlock, with its demon bodyguards, work in D&D.

(Of course, it's been years since I've played, they really drove that game down a bad path, so who knows what the class is like now.)

I think that’s quite doable, but it would actually be quite difficult with the warlock chassis (i’m Looking at you eldritch blast)

You’d need a base class with less in it.

I think making the beast master work like a hunter is an easier road

Though I haven’t played WoW in about 7 years so my impressions are also out of date

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's a challenge -- make the WOW-style Warlock, with its demon bodyguards, work in D&D.

(Of course, it's been years since I've played, they really drove that game down a bad path, so who knows what the class is like now.)

Fundamentally, MMO "pets" are best modeled by spiritual weapon, although with hit points that rarely matter for group content (because they're not tanks and are generally nearly immune to AoE effects). They're so far from a TTRPG concept (where the pet would need its own set of actions and be an individual rather than an auto-fire robot. And it's that part that's particularly hard. Both for balance (an extra set of actions is super powerful) and for intra-party OOC issues. Having one player control two or more characters while the others don't puts stress on the flow of table time in a tremendous way. This is exponentially worse if the second character has a personality--you get one person talking to themselves a lot, which is boring for everyone else. Also, the opportunity for exploitation rises.

And this is true at any level. Summoned pets (using a spell) are even worse, because they're disposable and run into the shapechange problem--access to the Monster Manual is probably the most powerful and hard to balance power-set possible. A custom-designed pet is easier to balance, but much more restrictive.

I built an elemental pet-class (the Primal Warden (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bCR5BxiOP-5w84rKvRvN_pYDKyOGHR4WNpRohwmzs0M/edit?usp=sharing)), but am not happy with it. In testing, it was way less than the sum of its parts, but increasing any part of the power or synergy made it way too powerful.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

One interesting fact from my experience is that INT is the least likely non-primary stat to be dumped. I think I might have had 1 (if that) PC in any of my groups for the last 3 years that put the 8 into INT. It's always 10 or 11 or better.

Of course I either use rolled stats (rarely) or the standard array, and none of my players are mechanically-focused.

Perhaps my experience is a bit skewed by running bits of adventures that have lots of Wis-based checks and saves. Int isn't usually dumped, precisely; it's just an afterthought. Str martials prioritize Str, Dex, Con and Wis ahead of it. Dex martials prioritize Dex, Con and Wis. Casters focus on their casting stat, Con, Dex and, if it isn't their casting stat, Wis. Int, and Cha and Str if unused, get whatever numbers happen to be left over. My players also prefer more active backgrounds like Outlander, Soldier or Urchin to stuff like Acolyte or Sage, so unless there's a wizard we often end up with a party where no one knows anything.

I don't really have a mechanical fix that I'd like to see, and just taking ranger and find/replacing Wis with Int is unsatisfying. I allowed a player to play an Int-based lore bard once and was pretty happy with the result, though he told me up front that he wasn't interested in doing a wizard multiclass; perhaps I'd have been less accommodating if that had been on the table. I don't know. Maybe in my next game I'll experiment with allowing bonus tool/language proficiencies based on Int bonus in the 3E style. Maybe I'll change the Expertise class feature to work based on Int. Something, anyway.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Perhaps my experience is a bit skewed by running bits of adventures that have lots of Wis-based checks and saves. Int isn't usually dumped, precisely; it's just an afterthought. Str martials prioritize Str, Dex, Con and Wis ahead of it. Dex martials prioritize Dex, Con and Wis. Casters focus on their casting stat, Con, Dex and, if it isn't their casting stat, Wis. Int, and Cha and Str if unused, get whatever numbers happen to be left over. My players also prefer more active backgrounds like Outlander, Soldier or Urchin to stuff like Acolyte or Sage, so unless there's a wizard we often end up with a party where no one knows anything.

I don't really have a mechanical fix that I'd like to see, and just taking ranger and find/replacing Wis with Int is unsatisfying. I allowed a player to play an Int-based lore bard once and was pretty happy with the result, though he told me up front that he wasn't interested in doing a wizard multiclass; perhaps I'd have been less accommodating if that had been on the table. I don't know. Maybe in my next game I'll experiment with allowing bonus tool/language proficiencies based on Int bonus in the 3E style. Maybe I'll change the Expertise class feature to work based on Int. Something, anyway.

I frequently have people who take all sorts of skills, so YMMV.

Not only that, I think we need to rethink what we mean. Most "smart heroes" from fantasy don't get their combat effectiveness from their intelligence. And that's what it means for a class to be INT based. Every non-wizard example I can think of is better modeled as depending on DEX for combat effectiveness.

And besides, many of them are not dumb, but not too far above the curve intellectually. They're INT 10-12, not INT 20. Basically the only high-INT, non-wizard types are the gadgeteers.

[Max_Killjoy]

Fundamentally, MMO "pets" are best modeled by spiritual weapon, although with hit points that rarely matter for group content (because they're not tanks and are generally nearly immune to AoE effects). They're so far from a TTRPG concept (where the pet would need its own set of actions and be an individual rather than an auto-fire robot. And it's that part that's particularly hard. Both for balance (an extra set of actions is super powerful) and for intra-party OOC issues. Having one player control two or more characters while the others don't puts stress on the flow of table time in a tremendous way. This is exponentially worse if the second character has a personality--you get one person talking to themselves a lot, which is boring for everyone else. Also, the opportunity for exploitation rises.

And this is true at any level. Summoned pets (using a spell) are even worse, because they're disposable and run into the shapechange problem--access to the Monster Manual is probably the most powerful and hard to balance power-set possible. A custom-designed pet is easier to balance, but much more restrictive.

I built an elemental pet-class (the Primal Warden (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bCR5BxiOP-5w84rKvRvN_pYDKyOGHR4WNpRohwmzs0M/edit?usp=sharing)), but am not happy with it. In testing, it was way less than the sum of its parts, but increasing any part of the power or synergy made it way too powerful.


In mechanical terms, the WOW Warlock's demons function (or functioned) much more like actual characters in their own right, than like summoned weapons, and were resistant but not immune to AOE. They never, IIRC, act as fiction-level characters, but that's about what I'd expect from an MMO.




I frequently have people who take all sorts of skills, so YMMV.

Not only that, I think we need to rethink what we mean. Most "smart heroes" from fantasy don't get their combat effectiveness from their intelligence. And that's what it means for a class to be INT based. Every non-wizard example I can think of is better modeled as depending on DEX for combat effectiveness.

And besides, many of them are not dumb, but not too far above the curve intellectually. They're INT 10-12, not INT 20. Basically the only high-INT, non-wizard types are the gadgeteers.


For D&D specifically, you might be right, in that "____-based" applies specifically to where the character gets their combat effectiveness from -- at least in part because so much of a character's combat effectiveness is tied to their Class and the stuff derived therefrom.

In some other games, characters can be focused on their "intelligence" without it being about combat, if the game is about more than combat. If D&D had more use for out-of-combat research and analysis, such as digging through old libraries and translating old tomes and deciphering cryptic maps in order to find those lost ruins with all their treasure, INT might be more of a big-deal for non-Wizards. Of course, in D&D, the two Classes best suited to build up mechanically for that sort of thing, certain types of Bards and Rogues, don't have much other use for INT...

In non-D&D fiction, there are characters who get at least a part of their combat effectiveness from being smart/clever, such as the character who gets a lot of use out their environment and out of improvised weapons.

[ZorroGames]

Maybe 0D&D residue on my part but IN seems more reading/study based characters in 5e. You are not a rock at IN 8 but study falls behind practice and hands on learning experiences for your character. You probably can easily read one main language and speak/read 1+ other but you “do” your skills/class more. That said, I put IN above WI for my ST based MD Rogue and my MD Druid for skills and role play/spell selection (non-saves) purposes so that is “niche’ish” in some aspects.

YMMV.

[ZorroGames]

I’m not so sure, can you cite a specific case (or a few) where you feel this applies?

I tend to think that it’s possible to balance most things.

Always worth the effort? Ok definitely not...

But usually possible.

I was going to reply but then thought it might go down a rabbit hole just discussing an opinion based on surface appearances.


Yes, a good DM/creator can balance most things. True indeed.

And, don’t forget, that 99% of my 5e play/DM is AL based. Though moving might change that dramatically.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In mechanical terms, the WOW Warlock's demons function (or functioned) much more like actual characters in their own right, than like summoned weapons, and were resistant but not immune to AOE. They never, IIRC, act as fiction-level characters, but that's about what I'd expect from an MMO.

Not really. Except in Classic, they all have 90% resistance to AoE damage, enough so that splash heals are enough to keep them up without concern.

The warlock pets are:

Imp: direct ranged damage. Basically a ranged spiritual weapon
Succubus: Weak CC. Replaced by a spell.
Voidwalker: weak tank. Not used in group content (which all of D&D is); threat mechanics don't exist and shouldn't exist.
Felhunter: direct melee damage. Basically spiritual weapon.

Plus a bunch of temporary ones.

So the ones that anyone ever used in group content were basically spiritual weapon, at least mechanically. Since there's no solo game in D&D, the others are basically pointless to replicate.

MMOs have almost entirely moved away from the "independent pet with separate abilities" model. Even FFXIV, the lone standout here, is moving away from that in the next expansion. The Summoner's Egi won't even interact with enemy damage any more--they won't have hit boxes or have HP. That's because having a large portion of your capabilities tied up in a destructible creature with stupid/annoying AI is not all that fun. That kind of micromanagement detracts from having engaging fight mechanics and gets people killed regularly. Most people just macro their abilities and don't worry about it.

And these concerns are worse in a TTRPG context. Because now the player has to provide direction for both, which results in a huge swing in power depending on the player. They're basically impossible to pin down the balance on unless you tone them way down, to the point that they feel decorative. And letting them be real NPCs leads to OOC friction, because now you've got 1/2 your class features bound up in something someone else controls.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not really. Except in Classic, they all have 90% resistance to AoE damage, enough so that splash heals are enough to keep them up without concern.

The warlock pets are:

Imp: direct ranged damage. Basically a ranged spiritual weapon
Succubus: Weak CC. Replaced by a spell.
Voidwalker: weak tank. Not used in group content (which all of D&D is); threat mechanics don't exist and shouldn't exist.
Felhunter: direct melee damage. Basically spiritual weapon.

Plus a bunch of temporary ones.

So the ones that anyone ever used in group content were basically spiritual weapon, at least mechanically. Since there's no solo game in D&D, the others are basically pointless to replicate.

MMOs have almost entirely moved away from the "independent pet with separate abilities" model. Even FFXIV, the lone standout here, is moving away from that in the next expansion. The Summoner's Egi won't even interact with enemy damage any more--they won't have hit boxes or have HP. That's because having a large portion of your capabilities tied up in a destructible creature with stupid/annoying AI is not all that fun. That kind of micromanagement detracts from having engaging fight mechanics and gets people killed regularly. Most people just macro their abilities and don't worry about it.

And these concerns are worse in a TTRPG context. Because now the player has to provide direction for both, which results in a huge swing in power depending on the player. They're basically impossible to pin down the balance on unless you tone them way down, to the point that they feel decorative. And letting them be real NPCs leads to OOC friction, because now you've got 1/2 your class features bound up in something someone else controls.

That's not how I remember the Warlock demons, but then I always played the "demonologist" subclass with the buffed demons. The buffed Voidtalker could tank anything but top-end content like a beast, for example. And I never found managing those demons to be distracting or dangerous or unfun, through multiple radical reworks of how they functioned across the expansions.

But, if WOW moved away from having the demons being more like actual characters, and made them into something else, maybe it's a good thing I lost interest in WOW. (See also, Sylvanus is evuls, the Horde and Alliance forgot all the work they did together, and a bunch of other crap storyline stuff too.)

This is actually of more than nostalgic and academic concern, I'm trying to come up with a way for PCs to have followers for the 4th century BCE setting / system I'm working on.


(Please see edit in post you replied to, I'm trying to be more vigilant about not double or triple posting.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's not how I remember the Warlock demons, but then I always played the "demonologist" subclass with the buffed demons. The buffed Voidtalker could tank anything but top-end content like a beast, for example. And I never found managing those demons to be distracting or dangerous or unfun, through multiple radical reworks of how they functioned across the expansions.

But, if WOW moved away from having the demons being more like actual characters, and made them into something else, maybe it's a good thing I lost interest in WOW. (See also, Sylvanus is evuls, the Horde and Alliance forgot all the work they did together, and a bunch of other crap storyline stuff too.)

This is actually of more than nostalgic and academic concern, I'm trying to come up with a way for PCs to have followers for the 4th century BCE setting / system I'm working on.


The problem with the demons is that they interacted with enemies (the entire game in that case) as if they were remote-piloted robots. Basically persistent spiritual weapon effects. The tanking only worked because they had massive threat boosts, and you had to heal them constantly to keep them up. Both of which are things you can't really do in D&D at all well. And no, even a Demonologist's VW could only handle dungeon mobs if you significantly out-geared/out-leveled the content. Which isn't really a thing in D&D.

On the other hand, followers work fine, as long as they're not part of a class's feature set. If they're just separate NPCs along for the ride, you can parcel them out to players to run and account for them in the encounter-building process in a simple manner. Pet-based classes don't work the same way--you have to have 1 character (for balance purposes) who gets two sets of actions. And that's stupidly hard to account for in a universal way. It can be totally useless or game-breaking without changing much at all.



For D&D specifically, you might be right, in that "____-based" applies specifically to where the character gets their combat effectiveness from -- at least in part because so much of a character's combat effectiveness is tied to their Class and the stuff derived therefrom.

In some other games, characters can be focused on their "intelligence" without it being about combat, if the game is about more than combat. If D&D had more use for out-of-combat research and analysis, such as digging through old libraries and translating old tomes and deciphering cryptic maps in order to find those lost ruins with all their treasure, INT might be more of a big-deal for non-Wizards. Of course, in D&D, the two Classes best suited to build up mechanically for that sort of thing, certain types of Bards and Rogues, don't have much other use for INT...

In non-D&D fiction, there are characters who get at least a part of their combat effectiveness from being smart/clever, such as the character who gets a lot of use out their environment and out of improvised weapons.

All of those secondary things are player-side in D&D terms. You don't need a (super) high INT to research; you just need time and an average INT (10-12). That, or you need henchmen/hired sages. Because D&D, fundamentally, is about the people who work on the field side, not the lab side. And ability scores, more than anything, model your capability to take action in the moment or to resist others actions. And all of those things only need 1 person per party who can do them.

Being an _______-based class is about how you act in sticky situations. Sure, there's room for another INT-based class. But it would be much more like either a psion or an artificer than a non-magical "guile hero", because those are better modeled on STR/DEX, because that's how they actually solve sticky situations. The Chessmaster archetype doesn't fit the party-based gameplay of D&D very well at all--it relies on others to do the actual doing.

Those are my opinions, anyway.

[Hytheter]

In non-D&D fiction, there are characters who get at least a part of their combat effectiveness from being smart/clever, such as the character who gets a lot of use out their environment and out of improvised weapons.

This kind of highlights a problem to me, which is that it's hard to actually relate the intelligence stat to so-called intelligent actions in combat. What can we really do? Somehow demand an Int check to use environmental features in combat? Add your int mod to improvised weapon damage? I've read another system (I think Hackmaster?) that simply adds Intelligence as a bonus to attack rolls, which struck me as rather blunt and not very satisfying (or realistic, despite their claims).

So the question is, what would an Int-based character even look like mechanically? How do we actually use the Intelligence score to reflect fighting intelligently in a meaningful, satisfying way?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Not only that, I think we need to rethink what we mean. Most "smart heroes" from fantasy don't get their combat effectiveness from their intelligence. And that's what it means for a class to be INT based. Every non-wizard example I can think of is better modeled as depending on DEX for combat effectiveness.

And besides, many of them are not dumb, but not too far above the curve intellectually. They're INT 10-12, not INT 20. Basically the only high-INT, non-wizard types are the gadgeteers.

I'm not necessarily talking about combat. There are lots of things in DnD that aren't combat-related. On the skill side, the knowledge skills are the only skills keyed to Int, if I'm remembering right. That's a change from 3E, where some of the more important skills for rogues were Int-based.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not necessarily talking about combat. There are lots of things in DnD that aren't combat-related. On the skill side, the knowledge skills are the only skills keyed to Int, if I'm remembering right. That's a change from 3E, where some of the more important skills for rogues were Int-based.

One of the key, if not the key rogue skill is Investigation. Which is INT-based. No, Perception isn't enough, even though a lot of DMs think it is. As designed, someone who wants to be good at spotting and disabling traps must either have proficiency in Investigation and a decent INT score or Expertise in Investigation. That also handles most of the "research" needs.

But being INT-based (just like STR/WIS/DEX/CHA) is about how you get your combat abilities. And INT makes very little sense there for a non-spellcaster, at least IMO.

Here's the Rogue class skill list from 3e:

The rogue’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Appraise (Int), Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Int), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Forgery (Int), Gather Information (Cha), Hide (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (local) (Int), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Open Lock (Dex), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), Use Magic Device (Cha), and Use Rope (Dex).

I count 6 INT-based skills: Appraise (lol, but still INT), Craft (lol), Disable Device (now a tool, not a skill at all), Forgery (still INT), Knowledge (local) (still INT), and Search (now part of Investigation, which is INT).

Except for the ones that are no longer skill-based (craft and disable device), everything that was INT-based is still INT based. And even disabling a trap could be an INT (thieves tools) check just as well as a DEX (thieves tools) check, depending on the trap.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

One of the key, if not the key rogue skill is Investigation. Which is INT-based. No, Perception isn't enough, even though a lot of DMs think it is. As designed, someone who wants to be good at spotting and disabling traps must either have proficiency in Investigation and a decent INT score or Expertise in Investigation. That also handles most of the "research" needs.

But being INT-based (just like STR/WIS/DEX/CHA) is about how you get your combat abilities. And INT makes very little sense there for a non-spellcaster, at least IMO.

It's not any stranger than Wis or Cha.


I count 6 INT-based skills: Appraise (lol, but still INT), Craft (lol), Disable Device (now a tool, not a skill at all), Forgery (still INT), Knowledge (local) (still INT), and Search (now part of Investigation, which is INT).

Except for the ones that are no longer skill-based (craft and disable device), everything that was INT-based is still INT based. And even disabling a trap could be an INT (thieves tools) check just as well as a DEX (thieves tools) check, depending on the trap.

Disable Device not being an Int-based skill is kind of a big deal if you're talking about Int-based skills. While it could be an Int check, it could also not, and the ones I've seen in published modules generally default to Dex. You're also losing Int mod to skill points, which expands that skill list to include random ranks in lots of different non-Int-based skills, some of which can only be used when trained in the skill.

[stoutstien]

In terms of a good summoner/ pet class I'd like to see one that has a pet that works as a buff/debuff focus vs damage.
I've been working on a metaphysics based int half caster that summons emotions to effect the party and enemies. Obviously wouldn't work in all settings but could be refluff into a dragon shaman style class.

[Man_Over_Game]

One of the key, if not the key rogue skill is Investigation. Which is INT-based. No, Perception isn't enough, even though a lot of DMs think it is. As designed, someone who wants to be good at spotting and disabling traps must either have proficiency in Investigation and a decent INT score or Expertise in Investigation. That also handles most of the "research" needs.

A lot of people seem to get those mixed up a lot.

I think it's best to just divide traps into two categories:


Those that are hidden.
Those that are complicated.


And, occasionally, a trap might be both. Being aware of the spike pit, and the various pillars across it that you use as stepping stones, but having really good eyesight isn't going to help you figure out which path is safest.

[Spiritchaser]

A lot of people seem to get those mixed up a lot.

I think it's best to just divide traps into two categories:


Those that are hidden.
Those that are complicated.


And, occasionally, a trap might be both. Being aware of the spike pit, and the various pillars across it that you use as stepping stones, but having really good eyesight isn't going to help you figure out which path is safest.


For my adventures I tend to heavily favour hidden traps over fiendish mechanisms.

The god wizard really REALLY doesn’t need to be more useful than he already is.

My DM always seems to favour whatever our party is weakest against, but that could just be perceived. I haven’t investigated in detail.

[Man_Over_Game]

For my adventures I tend to heavily favour hidden traps over fiendish mechanisms.

The god wizard really REALLY doesn’t need to be more useful than he already is.

My DM always seems to favour whatever our party is weakest against, but that could just be perceived. I haven’t investigated in detail.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the Wizard that solves it. For example, maybe the trap can't be disarmed without the right tools, and improvised tools make the check with Disadvantage.

Or, perhaps, the player is allowed to use all relevant proficiencies towards disarming the difficult trap (Investigation, Thieves Tools, Sleight of Hand), and the player get Advantage if he can apply more than one. This is a solution that Xanathar's recommends for tables who run into a problem of redundant proficiencies losing value instead of synergizing.

[Spiritchaser]

It’s a bit of an odd group. The swashbuckler actually traded their thieves tools for a disguise kit which I will always be fine with on principle... the Dex pally is the only one who can actually use thieves tools, because of her background. The wizard solves far more than his share of combat problems, because wizard, but also solves a lot of non combat problems, also because wizard.

It sounds odd but with a druid, a hexmurdereverythingblade with higher CHA than the Dex paladin and a wizard, it’s actually the paladin who often needs extra chances to shine (how often does that happen?). She has modestly high wisdom and observant, so hidden traps are an easy way for her to save everyone’s skin, providing I can keep it interesting.


The swashbuckler is a special case for other reasons.

[JackPhoenix]

So what I'm seeing is at-will help (great at levels 1-4, then tappers off), and some very limited ability to grant attacks.
That's not a Warlord. That's not even a poor man's Warlord.

As I thought, it's not that it exists but not in "exact specific ability", it's that even getting close to specific abilities is sub-par at best, and outright impossible at worst.

Come back to me when you've something that doesn't peter out after the first combat.

Right, so your warlord isn't an archetype of a warrior who inspires and support his teammates to make them more effective, but a specific class from a different edition. Thanks for proving my point.

[Yunru]

Right, so your warlord isn't an archetype of a warrior who inspires and support his teammates to make them more effective, but a specific class from a different edition. Thanks for proving my point.

Umm... what?
No. It doesn't prove your point at all.
Your point was that it was people looking for something specific.
"Effective, and helps my allies make more and/or better attacks" is not specific. That your suggestion lacks the "effective" part doesn't change that.

[NatureKing]

Why are you crying about a Warlord when Crown Paladins exist. Command enemies to target you rather than your allies. Take Shield Fighting Style to protect them as a reaction if low level, or their Divine Allegiance at 7+. Warding Bond to keep them alive. Synergy with Inspiring Leader. Bonus Action AoE Heals. Good party buff spells like Bless or BFC with Spirit Guardians.

What is it that you think a Warlord should do that can't be replicated by Crown Paladin, Battle Master or Mastermind?

[JackPhoenix]

Umm... what?
No. It doesn't prove your point at all.
Your point was that it was people looking for something specific.
"Effective, and helps my allies make more and/or better attacks" is not specific. That your suggestion lacks the "effective" part doesn't change that.

It is effective. Advantage doesn't "taper off" after level 4, it can grant off-turn movement or attacks (with extra damage), it can give temporary HP to whole group, and if the bard levels are added, provides additional buffs, healing and Bardic Inspiration (which can be used to further improve attacks or saves... or damage if you go valor instead of lore, unless you take 6 levels, it doesn't matter much, as you won't get Magical Secrets until then... as required) to other party members. And rogue/fighter multiclass is decent on its own, and has plenty of out of combat utility thanks to expertise.

It is short rest dependant on resource recharge, but there's nothing wrong with that.

So it does exactly what you say.


What is it that you think a Warlord should do that can't be replicated by Crown Paladin, Battle Master or Mastermind?

Propably being an overglorified cheerleader of a lazylord from 4e. Which can be replicated by Order domain's Voice of Authority.

[Man_Over_Game]

Umm... what?
No. It doesn't prove your point at all.
Your point was that it was people looking for something specific.
"Effective, and helps my allies make more and/or better attacks" is not specific. That your suggestion lacks the "effective" part doesn't change that.



What is it that you think a Warlord should do that can't be replicated by Crown Paladin, Battle Master or Mastermind?

We have the Crown Paladin, Battle Master, Mastermind, Valor Bard, Glamour Bard, Banneret Fighter, Totem Barbarian, Order Cleric, Monster Slayer Ranger....


Maybe none of those work, or maybe a combination of those doesn't accomplish what you're looking for. So what ARE you looking for?

[Yunru]

It is effective. Effective in parts yes. As a whole? No.

Advantage doesn't "taper off" after level 4 Advantage on a single attack very much loses luster once characters start depending on multiple attacks.

it can grant off-turn movement or attacks (with extra damage) For a very limited number of times per rest. Anything sounds good when you leave out restrictions. And let's not get started on how Commander's Strike is flat out terrible in almost all situations.


So it does exactly what you say. It does no such thing (unless you're running with a Rogue). In fact, it's entirely outclassed by a Sorcerer who just casts Haste at the start of combat. Being subpar to a single spell is not an effective subclass, let alone archetype.

[Zevox]

[Mystic] is so OP they scrapped it entirely.
Source? That would be profoundly disappointing. I wanted the class altered and split up as I described earlier, and of course balance changes made if they were needed, but definitely not scrapped entirely. 5E really should have its own Psionics at some point, and it would suck if they've officially dropped that entirely.

[Shriketalon]

We have the Crown Paladin, Battle Master, Mastermind, Valor Bard, Glamour Bard, Banneret Fighter, Totem Barbarian, Order Cleric, Monster Slayer Ranger....


Maybe none of those work, or maybe a combination of those doesn't accomplish what you're looking for. So what ARE you looking for?

Elegance.

One of the hallmarks of 5th edition is the elegant simplicity of its mechanics. Your broad character concept comes on line at level 3, if not earlier. Gone are the accursed days of 3rd edition where a character required a convoluted build with three classes, one level adjustment, and two prestige classes just to achieve the playstyle you want. In 5th edition, broad character archetypes unfurl into specific character archetypes very early in the character's career and support those archtypes all the way to level 20. This is elegant design.

But let's say your perspective is correct. If a class can be embodied by a build or two from other classes, it clearly isn't worth the six pages on which it's printed.

So why does the Paladin exist? Fighter 10/Cleric 10, bounce back and forth between them and you've got a halfcaster.

Why does the Bard exist? Rogue 1, Cleric 2 for healing, Wizard 17 for an arcane caster with healing and skills. I would say Sorcerer 17, but obviously that's already gone.

Barbarian? Fighter 20, go half orc, you're good.

Ranger? Fighter/Druid. Druid? Cleric/Ranger. Pick one.

The answer to these absurd strawman questions is, of course, mechanical and thematic elegance. The Paladin shines because the aura and smite mechanics allow him to be more than a simple fighter/cleric combo, a glorious knight that can embody many different oaths and tenants to fit a classic archetype and all its sub-archetypes. The Bard exists because the magical musician who supports, enchants, and beguiles is more fitting as a class from level 1, rather than the oldschool 1st edition design which required multiple classes before you were "allowed" to be a bard. Barbarian isn't just getting in legacy, because the savage warrior archetype allows cool concepts like Ancestral Guardian, Storm Herald, and Totem Warrior that couldn't be embodied by a single Fighter archetype. And the Ranger.....exists. Moving on...

What I want is a class that embodies the broad theme of a Martial Leader. This theme is present throughout fiction and thus has broad appeal, along with plenty of room for multiple archtypes featuring different combat styles and mental stat synergies. This class would allow players to play a martial leader from level 1 all the way to level 20, a mechanically elegant embodiment of a broad theme.

So why the hostility, honestly? How does a Warlord make your experience worse, in a way that a Paladin, a Bard, or a Barbarian does not? Do you think the Artificer they are playtesting should be scrapped because you can play a wizard? Not being confrontational, I am honestly curious. What's wrong with taking a broad theme and giving it a mechanically elegant class? 'Cause I'd call that progress.

[Naanomi]

Can you give an example of a warlord type character in fiction? Not a ‘in the tent strategizing’ type, or inspiring general on the front lines of a big army type... but a guy who travels with 3-4 other guys and just shouts out orders or otherwise directs the battle without engaging the enemy directly most of the time?

I ask because it always seemed like a very ‘gamist’ idea, something that makes sense in a board or video game; but not one I see represented in other genres

[Max_Killjoy]

Elegance.

One of the hallmarks of 5th edition is the elegant simplicity of its mechanics. Your broad character concept comes on line at level 3, if not earlier. Gone are the accursed days of 3rd edition where a character required a convoluted build with three classes, one level adjustment, and two prestige classes just to achieve the playstyle you want. In 5th edition, broad character archetypes unfurl into specific character archetypes very early in the character's career and support those archtypes all the way to level 20. This is elegant design.


About half the "test characters" I tried to build when looking at 5e ended up as convoluted multiclass builds that had to take a particular class in what felt like the wrong order in order to deal with the multiclassing penalty.




The problem with the demons is that they interacted with enemies (the entire game in that case) as if they were remote-piloted robots. Basically persistent spiritual weapon effects. The tanking only worked because they had massive threat boosts, and you had to heal them constantly to keep them up. Both of which are things you can't really do in D&D at all well. And no, even a Demonologist's VW could only handle dungeon mobs if you significantly out-geared/out-leveled the content. Which isn't really a thing in D&D.

On the other hand, followers work fine, as long as they're not part of a class's feature set. If they're just separate NPCs along for the ride, you can parcel them out to players to run and account for them in the encounter-building process in a simple manner. Pet-based classes don't work the same way--you have to have 1 character (for balance purposes) who gets two sets of actions. And that's stupidly hard to account for in a universal way. It can be totally useless or game-breaking without changing much at all.


I remember using my super-VW (it had a separate name) as the backup tank in 4-man content. I very rarely did 10-man or 20-man stuff, and mostly did solo content, so for me having that super-VW or super-FW as my own personal tank was priceless -- Warlock was absolutely my favorite class in that game.

As for followers, my intent is to have them available to all characters of sufficient wealth or status or renown, as part of implementing a certain cultural feel in the game -- spearcarriers, shieldmen, apprentices, porters, etc.




All of those secondary things are player-side in D&D terms. You don't need a (super) high INT to research; you just need time and an average INT (10-12). That, or you need henchmen/hired sages. Because D&D, fundamentally, is about the people who work on the field side, not the lab side. And ability scores, more than anything, model your capability to take action in the moment or to resist others actions. And all of those things only need 1 person per party who can do them.

Being an _______-based class is about how you act in sticky situations. Sure, there's room for another INT-based class. But it would be much more like either a psion or an artificer than a non-magical "guile hero", because those are better modeled on STR/DEX, because that's how they actually solve sticky situations. The Chessmaster archetype doesn't fit the party-based gameplay of D&D very well at all--it relies on others to do the actual doing.

Those are my opinions, anyway.


Take an Indiana Jones sort of character. Throughout Raiders, it's his knowledge and wits that get him through a lot of the challenges, as much as his pistol or whip or fists. And while they don't show a lot of it on-screen, it's heavily implied that his book research plays a key role in his success and that he's better than average at that side of things as well.

It would be sad, IMO, if D&D were utterly incapable of handling a campaign more based in non-combat situations, the non-immediate-threat-of-death complications and challenges, etc. And a character who invests in INT and History and Arcana really should be a better researcher than the average grunt, hack, or apprentice.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I frequently have people who take all sorts of skills, so YMMV.

Not only that, I think we need to rethink what we mean. Most "smart heroes" from fantasy don't get their combat effectiveness from their intelligence. And that's what it means for a class to be INT based. Every non-wizard example I can think of is better modeled as depending on DEX for combat effectiveness.

And besides, many of them are not dumb, but not too far above the curve intellectually. They're INT 10-12, not INT 20. Basically the only high-INT, non-wizard types are the gadgeteers.

I play a warlock with max INT. Nk homebrew. Just a dragonborn warlock, who happens to beat te rest of the party's intelligence by about 12

[Shriketalon]

Can you give an example of a warlord type character in fiction? Not a ‘in the tent strategizing’ type, or inspiring general on the front lines of a big army type... but a guy who travels with 3-4 other guys and just shouts out orders or otherwise directs the battle without engaging the enemy directly most of the time?

First of all, at no point did I say anything about "without engaging the enemy directly". Not sure where that projection on the class concept is coming from. A good Warlord class should allow people to pick a couple of different combat styles, ranging from a frontline battle captain to an underhanded guerilla leader. Leaders come in many shapes and sizes, some leading from the front, others from horseback, some from behind.

If I wanted to play a "lazylord", I'd go shepherd druid. :smalltongue:

The better question is "Can you give an example of a tactician, strategist, or inspiring leaders in fiction?" And the answer is obviously yes. I can rattle off a list ranging from Faramir and Leonidas to Captain America and Optimus Prime, but I think we're both well aware that military captains, martials, tacticians, and strategists are a fairly common theme in combat-focused media.

The further question is "Does the class offer something worthwhile to the game?", and I would argue that it does. Supportive maneuvers on a martial character would be awesome. A non-caster class that can use Int, Wis, and Cha for combat and non-combat a like would be great. Non-magical enhancements for the party that focus on pushing others beyond their limits would be great. If that can all be wrapped up in an elegant mechanical bow and decorated with several thematic archetypes, then it's just as worthy of class treatment as the Barbarian, Paladin, Bard, or Ranger.

[Mongobear]

As far as mechanics, a Gish-in-a-Can Arcane Half-Caster.

A port over of 3.5's Duskblade, or PF's Magus is the closest I can think of.

Warlock is close, but short of Hexblade it's a terrible Gish. I want something out of the box that is designed as an actual hybrid melee/offensive caster from the start.

[NatureKing]

Effective in parts yes. As a whole? No.
Meaningless words when you don't quantify.

Advantage on a single attack very much loses luster once characters start depending on multiple attacks.
Apart from those which don't: Spell Attacks, Rogues, etc


For a very limited number of times per rest. Anything sounds good when you leave out restrictions. And let's not get started on how Commander's Strike is flat out terrible in almost all situations.
So take a short rest.

The rogue very much enjoyed my ally picking up a Martial Adept for Commander's Strike, thank you kindly. The Melee Warlock enjoyed making multiple Smites in a Round when he needed.


It does no such thing (unless you're running with a Rogue). In fact, it's entirely outclassed by a Sorcerer who just casts Haste at the start of combat. Being subpar to a single spell is not an effective subclass, let alone archetype.
Oh, that's a good point. What about spells which improve you allies. Are these not Warlords? Or can you only be a Warlord if you don't cast spells? What about a Cleric who doesn't max Wis and instead picks up Divinations and Buffs like Bless?

What about if this theoretical Warlord you created had an ability which created a Haste or Bless like effect?

I will not complain about having more options available, but what you are complaining about is... Essentially, pretty embarrassing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I remember using my super-VW (it had a separate name) as the backup tank in 4-man content. I very rarely did 10-man or 20-man stuff, and mostly did solo content, so for me having that super-VW or super-FW as my own personal tank was priceless -- Warlock was absolutely my favorite class in that game.

As for followers, my intent is to have them available to all characters of sufficient wealth or status or renown, as part of implementing a certain cultural feel in the game -- spearcarriers, shieldmen, apprentices, porters, etc.


You can do hirelings just fine in 5e with no changes. You just...hire them. Or you can get 3 non-combat ones for a background choice.




Take an Indiana Jones sort of character. Throughout Raiders, it's his knowledge and wits that get him through a lot of the challenges, as much as his pistol or whip or fists. And while they don't show a lot of it on-screen, it's heavily implied that his book research plays a key role in his success and that he's better than average at that side of things as well.


Indy is a classic high-INT rogue archetype with a background as a sage. When it comes to adventuring, he's Dex all the way.



It would be sad, IMO, if D&D were utterly incapable of handling a campaign more based in non-combat situations, the non-immediate-threat-of-death complications and challenges, etc. And a character who invests in INT and History and Arcana really should be a better researcher than the average grunt, hack, or apprentice.

You want games that focus on a core (because that's consistent). Well, D&D has decided to focus on Adventuring as the core. That means getting out into trap-, monster-, and danger-infested locales and doing things under threat of harm. It has never claimed to be good for doing political or otherwise non-combat-related games. And that's intentional. It does not claim to model non-combatants. As such, class features are designed to set how a character adventures, not how he spends downtime. Because that, in D&D's model, is what that kind of research is. Downtime. How you prepare for adventures, not how you adventure. Modeling the research at the action-by-action level would be horribly, horribly boring for many, if not most players. It's the sort of thing that takes a single roll (or maybe a couple) and a short narration. As such, it's not generally a class feature but a background or skill proficiency.

I'll repeat. Class features set how you adventure, which involves life-or-death situations and dealing with threats. Those may not be combat threats, but they're not threats of paper cuts or bad tenure reviews.

And you can make a great researcher (who can also investigate and adventure) simply by taking the Sage background. That's what it's there for. You get proficiencies in key INT skills and you get a feature that lets you unerringly know where to look for information! Heck, a Knowledge Cleric with the Sage background and good INT is a darn good "researcher". Throw in a level of rogue or two of bard (for expertise in more skills) and you have the best darn researcher out there and you're still a force to be reckoned with.

-------------------
More generally, there seems to be this all-or-none thought out there. That either your class has explicit features regarding <STAT> or <STAT> is worthless to you. It's the min-max mentality. 5e doesn't work that way. Maxing out your "main" stat early doesn't really buy you much unless you're hyper-specializing. Unless you're doing a 3+ feat, non-variant-human build, everyone has room to get into positive territory on most stats. And that, plus strategic proficiencies to cover weak spots, is enough. Since the DCs cap at 20 (for practical purposes), you don't need to be a genius. You can be a smart character with only a 12 or 14 INT. Remember, 20 INT is Einstein levels...except Einstein in every field of study. To have 20 INT is to be the ultimate polymath. 14 INT is still pretty darn smart--smarter than the vast majority of people you run into on a daily basis.

[Yunru]

Oh, that's a good point. What about spells which improve you allies. Are these not Warlords? Or can you only be a Warlord if you don't cast spells? What about a Cleric who doesn't max Wis and instead picks up Divinations and Buffs like Bless?

What about if this theoretical Warlord you created had an ability which created a Haste or Bless like effect?
Honestly, despite my want for it to be non-magical, if there was just a cantrip that let an ally make an attack against a creature within weapon range of you (at maybe the cost of a reaction (certainly not the trash that is your bonus action, an attack, a BM die and their reaction)), maybe adding an attack by you at level 5, then I'd be happy.
I'd be able to do my thing, reliably, repeatedly and effectively. It wouldn't be a class any more than Eldritch Blast is a class, but like EB can make anyone okay at damage, it'd make anyone okay at enabling.

And it'd combo nicely with support spells like bless and insert spell here.


Even non-magically it's almost absurdly easy to homebrew a (sub)class for the Warlord. Several in fact, since it is a large, unexplored space. It's just annoying that there isn't any official content of it.


I will not complain about having more options available, but what you are complaining about is... Essentially, pretty embarrassing.Umm... I'm not complaining? The insult was made that anyone who wanted a Warlord was just ignoring that you could make an effective one already. That was the point I was rebutting.

[NatureKing]

Superiority Dice expenditure is a none complaint. Bonus Action use is a none complaint. The issue is that it forgoes your Attack. Which, you have two, three or four of anyway.

If there was a class without Extra Attack the ability to issue commanders strike or maneuvering strike X number of times a day, how is that any different? Apart from 'opportunity cost', which is no different than saying why be a 4E Monk when you can be a Lore Wizard?

Seriously.

Still unsure of an Inspiring Leader Crown Paladin Battlemaster doesn't work.

[Yunru]

Superiority Dice expenditure is a none complaint.Making a statement does not make that statement true.

Bonus Action use is a none complaint.Yeah, especially for the suggested build where you use your Bonus action to Help. Oh wait.

The issue is that it forgoes your Attack.Not at all. That's the one bit that makes sense. An attack for an attack.


If there was a class without Extra Attack the ability to issue commanders strike or maneuvering strike X number of times a day, how is that any different? Apart from 'opportunity cost', which is no different than saying why be a 4E Monk when you can be a Lore Wizard?Complete strawman.

[NatureKing]

How is expending your Short Rest resource to do the thing you want. That short rest resource can be used to do other things. Not Leader things, thereby violating the archetype you want.

Using the Bonus Action is no different to having to choose whether you want to cast Haste or Fireball as a Sorcerer. If you want to use your Bonus Action to grant Advantage for free or another attack in exchange for a creatures reaction, then that is your choice.

You brought up the issue that it costs your Attack. Apologies for assuming you had an issue with it.

Like you said, making a statement doesn't necessarily make it true. It is not a strawman. The only cost you have is opportunity cost, of which the opportunity cost is not to play your archetype.

Would it be nice to have extra stuff? Yes. Is there extra stuff? No. Can you make a Leader type within the stuff present? Yes. Can it be effective? Yes. Your DM needs to play within the level of the group if you are facing stuff too powerful for your group. Lower the difficulty to a stage you can actually enjoy the game.

You comments are strawman, because quite literally the ability to enhance others as being the defining ethos as a Warlord, is inherently built into the game.

[Willie the Duck]

Can you give an example of a warlord type character in fiction? Not a ‘in the tent strategizing’ type, or inspiring general on the front lines of a big army type... but a guy who travels with 3-4 other guys and just shouts out orders or otherwise directs the battle without engaging the enemy directly most of the time?

I ask because it always seemed like a very ‘gamist’ idea, something that makes sense in a board or video game; but not one I see represented in other genres

In theory, Cyclops (/Storm in the 80s Claremont era) plays this role for X-Men teams. Regardless of having a power, most of the time either of them was telling the rest of the team how to tackle the problems at hand. Mind you, most of the time one or more of the team ignored that advice/those commands, and that may or may not have stopped the team from achieving their objective (or gotten them in trouble) and then arguing about it afterwards, and so forth. Of course intra-team conflict is part of that fictions' main tropes and so of course they would work less cohesively than you hope your PCs do. Batman (when part of Justice League or Society) and Captain America often fill this role as well. In all cases, it is a mixed comparison, because they also do a lot of action-y things themselves while doing this. Professor X tends to do this... sort of, since he's usually viewing the battle remotely through telepathy, but sometimes he gets into the mix and calls shots verbally.

I agree that, in fiction, "without engaging the enemy directly most of the time" is a problem. I feel that in fiction you want your squad commander out there with gun in hand shooting (even if they have a pistol and the rest of the team has machine guns), even when that probably would be pretty pointless in the real world situation the genre fiction is emulating. The closest I can think outside four-color comics of this is the stereotyped British field officer who strolls around the battlefield, not ducking and waving his soldiers (or tanks) forward with his riding crop.

[Max_Killjoy]

You can do hirelings just fine in 5e with no changes. You just...hire them. Or you can get 3 non-combat ones for a background choice.


They're in the DMG, aren't they? Eventually I'll find a used copy of that for reference. Until then I can't really comment on how they're handled in 5e.




Indy is a classic high-INT rogue archetype with a background as a sage. When it comes to adventuring, he's Dex all the way.


Figuring out all the puzzles and clues is DEX? (See, the staff with the sunbeam as one example.)




You want games that focus on a core (because that's consistent). Well, D&D has decided to focus on Adventuring as the core. That means getting out into trap-, monster-, and danger-infested locales and doing things under threat of harm. It has never claimed to be good for doing political or otherwise non-combat-related games. And that's intentional. It does not claim to model non-combatants. As such, class features are designed to set how a character adventures, not how he spends downtime. Because that, in D&D's model, is what that kind of research is. Downtime. How you prepare for adventures, not how you adventure. Modeling the research at the action-by-action level would be horribly, horribly boring for many, if not most players. It's the sort of thing that takes a single roll (or maybe a couple) and a short narration. As such, it's not generally a class feature but a background or skill proficiency.


I don't think anyone suggested an action-by-action combat-detail-level for research. But...




I'll repeat. Class features set how you adventure, which involves life-or-death situations and dealing with threats. Those may not be combat threats, but they're not threats of paper cuts or bad tenure reviews.

And you can make a great researcher (who can also investigate and adventure) simply by taking the Sage background. That's what it's there for. You get proficiencies in key INT skills and you get a feature that lets you unerringly know where to look for information! Heck, a Knowledge Cleric with the Sage background and good INT is a darn good "researcher". Throw in a level of rogue or two of bard (for expertise in more skills) and you have the best darn researcher out there and you're still a force to be reckoned with.


...if I took the Sage background and positive INT and some INT-based Skills... and the gameplay that resulted amounted to "yeap, you know where to find that info, here you go" as a 10-second exchange once every umpteen sessions, I'd be disappointed.




-------------------
More generally, there seems to be this all-or-none thought out there. That either your class has explicit features regarding <STAT> or <STAT> is worthless to you. It's the min-max mentality. 5e doesn't work that way. Maxing out your "main" stat early doesn't really buy you much unless you're hyper-specializing. Unless you're doing a 3+ feat, non-variant-human build, everyone has room to get into positive territory on most stats. And that, plus strategic proficiencies to cover weak spots, is enough. Since the DCs cap at 20 (for practical purposes), you don't need to be a genius. You can be a smart character with only a 12 or 14 INT. Remember, 20 INT is Einstein levels...except Einstein in every field of study. To have 20 INT is to be the ultimate polymath. 14 INT is still pretty darn smart--smarter than the vast majority of people you run into on a daily basis.


Not to be snarky, but... from previous discussions, I thought that 5e was allergic to establishing any sort of scale for what numbers really line up with on the fiction level of the game.

[Yunru]

Can it be effective? Yes.

Effective if your party has one of maybe three other builds is not effective, its niche.

[NatureKing]

Effective if your party has one of maybe three other builds is not effective, its niche.

I think you might trying to make a point, but you're not doing it well enough.

[Man_Over_Game]

So why the hostility, honestly? How does a Warlord make your experience worse, in a way that a Paladin, a Bard, or a Barbarian does not? Do you think the Artificer they are playtesting should be scrapped because you can play a wizard? Not being confrontational, I am honestly curious. What's wrong with taking a broad theme and giving it a mechanically elegant class? 'Cause I'd call that progress.

You make some good points. I don't mean it as hostility, at all. I think it's a great thing to strive for. The thing is, though, before we should ever consider adding something new, we need to consider what's missing. We need to do more than just make another Paladin, or another attempt at the Banneret.

Why CAN'T a Warlord be those things? If I understand what you're saying, the concern is that the Banneret doesn't become the thing you want it to by level 1. Now, between things like the Variant Human, various feats and backgrounds, I'd say it was already possible to start playing like a Warlord at level 1. Even the Arcane Trickster doesn't get a lick of magic until level 3, so...I'm not sure if the issue of not having specialized features at level 1 is a major problem, but to each their own. The Order Cleric basically gets this as a level 1 feature.

Making your "warlord" features reliant on magic might be against what you're looking for, but that can be reflavored, just like how a Ranger might decide to not use much magic for their survivalist concept.

Multiclassing to build a concept is probably the easiest way to go, though. You can't create a stealthy sniper without some combination of Rogue and some source of martial weapons (usually Fighter). You can't make a grappling thug without mixing Barbarian and Rogue. If you want to play an Eldritch Knight, but wanted to use more magical solutions rather than brute force, then you'll probably want a few levels into Wizard.

In this case, the options for assisting your allies aren't quite what you're looking for as an existing straight class...but can it be tuned to be what you want through multiclassing? That's the question I'd like to know. And if not...why not? What CAN'T you do? With that, there's just enough of a foundation to make something.

[Yunru]

Making your "warlord" features reliant on magic might be against what you're looking for, but that can be reflavored, just like how a Ranger might decide to not use much magic for their survivalist concept.

That said, there's a limit to how far reflavouring can go.
No amount of "it's not actually magic" is going to stop that Counterspell just cast on you (for example), which is also a big problem with a spells-as-gadgets gadgeteer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

[1] They're in the DMG, aren't they? Eventually I'll find a used copy of that for reference. Until then I can't really comment on how they're handled in 5e.

[2] Figuring out all the puzzles and clues is DEX? (See, the staff with the sunbeam as one example.)

[3] I don't think anyone suggested an action-by-action combat-detail-level for research. But... ...if I took the Sage background and positive INT and some INT-based Skills... and the gameplay that resulted amounted to "yeap, you know where to find that info, here you go" as a 10-second exchange once every umpteen sessions, I'd be disappointed.

[4]Not to be snarky, but... from previous discussions, I thought that 5e was allergic to establishing any sort of scale for what numbers really line up with on the fiction level of the game.

[1] Costs for hirelings are in the PHB, in the lifestyle cost section.
[2] So he has proficiency (probably expertise) in Investigation/History? I'm not sure how that makes him INT-based. He's a classic Rogue, as much as a non-D&D character can be.
[3] Then what do you want it to be like? Remember it's a group game, so one person taking a good chunk of table time for a solo session is not going to fly. BTW, the sage feature tells you where to look, but explicitly says that it will likely require an adventure all on its own. "That's in the Lost Library of Booktown..."
[4] I mis-spoke. 20 INT is as high as humans can get without legendary magical assistance. That's beyond Einstein.

[Man_Over_Game]

That said, there's a limit to how far reflavouring can go.
No amount of "it's not actually magic" is going to stop that Counterspell just cast on you (for example), which is also a big problem with a spells-as-gadgets gadgeteer.

That's fair. Is that the concern, then? Something like the Order Cleric CAN provide what you're looking for, but doesn't because it relies on magic?

[Yunru]

That's fair. Is that the concern, then? Something like the Order Cleric CAN provide what you're looking for, but doesn't because it relies on magic?

Honestly if it's in Xanathar's or beyond I've probably not checked it out.
Besides which, we have a Warlord homebrew we're happy with, so I've not looked too closely into new alternatives.
I just know that a Battlemaster doesn't do it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Honestly if it's in Xanathar's or beyond I've probably not checked it out.
Besides which, we have a Warlord homebrew we're happy with, so I've not looked too closely into new alternatives.
I just know that a Battlemaster doesn't do it.

The Order Cleric is a heavily armored melee cleric that causes allies to attack (like Commander's Strike) whenever the Cleric casts a spell on their ally. So Healing Word + That ally attacks with a Reaction.

How is your Warlord Homebrew? I'd like to see it. I've been interested in modifying the Banneret to fulfill a similar role, but I've been unsure of how to accomplish it.

[Max_Killjoy]

[1] Costs for hirelings are in the PHB, in the lifestyle cost section.


The rest of the rules are where?




[2] So he has proficiency (probably expertise) in Investigation/History? I'm not sure how that makes him INT-based. He's a classic Rogue, as much as a non-D&D character can be.


At some point I forgot we were even talking about specifically a Class being INT-based, and just got stuck on the notion that Indy's just another DEX-based character with a couple sideline Skill proficiencies or expertises.

Also, weren't we just at the point where we're saying that there's too much of a min-max focus on whether a character is "<Ability>-based"?




[3] Then what do you want it to be like? Remember it's a group game, so one person taking a good chunk of table time for a solo session is not going to fly. BTW, the sage feature tells you where to look, but explicitly says that it will likely require an adventure all on its own. "That's in the Lost Library of Booktown..."


Because heaven forbid that the information ever be someplace that doesn't require Yet Another Adventure...

This whole "It's About Adventures!" thing is sounding less like tight focus and more like an RPG with blatant monomania every time it comes up.




[4] I mis-spoke. 20 INT is as high as humans can get without legendary magical assistance. That's beyond Einstein.


Regardless, it comes back to the question of whether D&D should have explicit scales of "meaning" on things like Abilities, DCs, etc.

[Yunru]

It's pretty simple.
Fighting style and Rousing Speech at level 1 (a remote second wind), the ability to forgo a attack to give an attack against an adjacent foe for free at level 2, subclasses split into Int and Cha (10xInt mod feet enabling, +Cha mod to damage, that sort of thing).
I'll probably post the whole thing in homebrew if people are genuinely interested. Always avoided it because there are so many it seems.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's pretty simple.
Fighting style and Rousing Speech at level 1 (a remote second wind), the ability to forgo a attack to give an attack against an adjacent foe for free at level 2, subclasses split into Int and Cha (10xInt mod feet enabling, +Cha mod to damage, that sort of thing).
I'll probably post the whole thing in homebrew if people are genuinely interested. Always avoided it because there are so many it seems.

I'll be honest...it sounds like you're almost describing the Banneret, but a little bit better.

The Banneret wasn't much different than the core Fighter, but it just enhanced his allies when he used Second Wind or Action Surge, and had some Cha-based team buffs. It's located in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, under the name Purple Dragon Knight (which is the specific name the subclass has for in the Sword Coast, called Banneret everywhere else).

[PhoenixPhyre]

The rest of the rules are where?


What other rules do you want? They're NPCs, and you deal with NPCs the same way you deal with any NPC.




At some point I forgot we were even talking about specifically a Class being INT-based, and just got stuck on the notion that Indy's just another DEX-based character with a couple sideline Skill proficiencies or expertises.

Also, weren't we just at the point where we're saying that there's too much of a min-max focus on whether a character is "<Ability>-based"?


People want a non-magical, INT-primary character. Which is what I'm disputing there's a reason for.




Because heaven forbid that the information ever be someplace that doesn't require Yet Another Adventure...

This whole "It's About Adventures!" thing is sounding less like tight focus and more like an RPG with blatant monomania every time it comes up.


You are moving the goalposts. By choice, everything important in D&D happens during adventures. That's the primary fact of the system. Trying to deny that is like playing poker cooperatively. It denies the central premise. Not only that, you didn't answer the question as to what it should look like.



Regardless, it comes back to the question of whether D&D should have explicit scales of "meaning" on things like Abilities, DCs, etc.

No it doesn't, unless you want to make everything about that. By definition, an INT-primary character should want to reach INT 20 as one of their priorities, because it controls how they interact with the majority of their features. But that has nothing to do with being smart. Essentially none of the common "smart heroes" are super-geniuses, or at least none of them directly use their intellect to do their heroics.

By construction, D&D 5e uses the physical ability scores for non-spell-casting people and the mental ones for spell-casters. Asking for crossover means you risk breaking lots of stuff. Plus have to rewrite the entire rulebook, unless you want to create another hexblade, except for wizards this time.

[Max_Killjoy]

What other rules do you want? They're NPCs, and you deal with NPCs the same way you deal with any NPC.


Am I forgetting where the rules for NPCs are in the PHB?




People want a non-magical, INT-primary character. Which is what I'm disputing there's a reason for.


So you're saying there's no room in D&D for smart non-caster characters?

Or just making INT into the "good at casting" Ability as opposed to representing anything about the character's intelligence?




You are moving the goalposts. By choice, everything important in D&D happens during adventures. That's the primary fact of the system. Trying to deny that is like playing poker cooperatively. It denies the central premise.


Maybe it's that "central premise" that I find so irksome, then. It's silly. It either reduces non-Adventuring to a sideline even when what's going on is of immense important to the characters... or it attempts to shoehorn everything important into an Adventure... or it makes "Adventure" into a diluted and bloated term for "interesting stuff is happening" or "there's interesting stuff going on, so this is an Adventure".

(PS, not accepting someone else's goalposts isn't "moving the goalposts".)




Not only that, you didn't answer the question as to what it should look like.


Less granular than combat, more granular than "Congrats here's your answer now get back to the dungeon-plundering this game isn't about suspense or intrigue or mysteries in dusty tomes or romance or assassination plots or a kingdom endangered by a dire artifact."

(And that latter is exactly what "this game is only about Adventures" comes across as sometimes.)




No it doesn't, unless you want to make everything about that. By definition, an INT-primary character should want to reach INT 20 as one of their priorities, because it controls how they interact with the majority of their features. But that has nothing to do with being smart. Essentially none of the common "smart heroes" are super-geniuses, or at least none of them directly use their intellect to do their heroics.

By construction, D&D 5e uses the physical ability scores for non-spell-casting people and the mental ones for spell-casters. Asking for crossover means you risk breaking lots of stuff. Plus have to rewrite the entire rulebook, unless you want to create another hexblade, except for wizards this time.


"An INT-based character should want to reach INT 20 as a priority... but that has nothing to do wit being smart".

If that's not a sign of a HUGE problem in a system...

[Yunru]

I'll be honest...it sounds like you're almost describing the Banneret, but a little bit better.

The Banneret wasn't much different than the core Fighter, but it just enhanced his allies when he used Second Wind or Action Surge, and had some Cha-based team buffs. It's located in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, under the name Purple Dragon Knight (which is the specific name the subclass has for in the Sword Coast, called Banneret everywhere else).
Yes, it's very much to the banneret what the Wizard is to the Eldritch Knight (although maybe Paladin to EK would be more accurate in terms of balance of features).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Max, I had a long reply written up when I realized that talking to you about D&D is futile. Your tastes on the matter are so firmly fixed that nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. You're right, D&D is not a game you like. But that doesn't make it bad, nor does it make it unsuccessful at doing what it claims to do.

[Shriketalon]

Multiclassing to build a concept is probably the easiest way to go, though. You can't create a stealthy sniper without some combination of Rogue and some source of martial weapons (usually Fighter). You can't make a grappling thug without mixing Barbarian and Rogue. If you want to play an Eldritch Knight, but wanted to use more magical solutions rather than brute force, then you'll probably want a few levels into Wizard.

I certainly agree that multiclassing provides a lot of flexibility when it comes to character concepts. I'm personally a bit adverse to it, but that's probably the trauma of my 3rd edition gaming group inserting a bit of bias. However, I think it worth noting that a multiclass character tends to narrow their focus onto a particular concept, whereas an archetype often broadens a class to a wider variety of things.

Take the Barbarian/Rogue you mentioned. By becoming slightly less of a barbarian, the barbarian character can gain expertise in athetlics to become really good at grappling. Yet an archtype would be a lot better, because this barbarian does have high numbers, he doesn't grapple like a barbarian.

He can't pick enemies up and throw them at other enemies to damage them both. He can't bear-hug a foe and squeeze the life out of them for massive damage like Hercules and the Nemean Lion. He can't clash with them like Karok in Vindictus, using his reaction to halt an enemy charge and hurl them aside. He can't get a boost to unarmed damage to make a wrestler competitive. And he can't grapple foes more than one size larger than him, which is really the point of being a barbarian grappler, isn't it?

A Barbarian/Rogue can grapple well. But a wrestling-themed Barbarian archetype can grapple barbarically. :smallbiggrin:

You can make a character who summons, but the mechanics don't support a Summoner character very well from levels 1-20. You can make a martial character who leads, but there aren't many mechanics in play and it lurches awkwardly from level to level. And you can replicate a lot of monstrous abilities by using spells, but that's not the same as having a monstrous class via invocations. There's a a lot of room in multiclassing, but there's far more elegant ways of mechanically representing broad themes.

[Bjarkmundur]

You can make a character who summons, but the mechanics don't support a Summoner character very well from levels 1-20. You can make a martial character who leads, but there aren't many mechanics in play and it lurches awkwardly from level to level. And you can replicate a lot of monstrous abilities by using spells, but that's not the same as having a monstrous class via invocations. There's a a lot of room in multiclassing, but there's far more elegant ways of mechanically representing broad themes.

This.
Multiclassing isn't for everyone, and many would rather scrap a concept that have to multiclass to achieve it.

[Man_Over_Game]

I certainly agree that multiclassing provides a lot of flexibility when it comes to character concepts. I'm personally a bit adverse to it, but that's probably the trauma of my 3rd edition gaming group inserting a bit of bias. However, I think it worth noting that a multiclass character tends to narrow their focus onto a particular concept, whereas an archetype often broadens a class to a wider variety of things.

Take the Barbarian/Rogue you mentioned. By becoming slightly less of a barbarian, the barbarian character can gain expertise in athetlics to become really good at grappling. Yet an archtype would be a lot better, because this barbarian does have high numbers, he doesn't grapple like a barbarian.

He can't pick enemies up and throw them at other enemies to damage them both. He can't bear-hug a foe and squeeze the life out of them for massive damage like Hercules and the Nemean Lion. He can't clash with them like Karok in Vindictus, using his reaction to halt an enemy charge and hurl them aside. He can't get a boost to unarmed damage to make a wrestler competitive. And he can't grapple foes more than one size larger than him, which is really the point of being a barbarian grappler, isn't it?

A Barbarian/Rogue can grapple well. But a wrestling-themed Barbarian archetype can grapple barbarically. :smallbiggrin:

You can make a character who summons, but the mechanics don't support a Summoner character very well from levels 1-20. You can make a martial character who leads, but there aren't many mechanics in play and it lurches awkwardly from level to level. And you can replicate a lot of monstrous abilities by using spells, but that's not the same as having a monstrous class via invocations. There's a a lot of room in multiclassing, but there's far more elegant ways of mechanically representing broad themes.

And that's the proper response!

The problem with the Warlord is that:


It's a martial character who hits things (which we have 4 of, and several subclasses for).
It's uses Charisma (which we have 4 of, and several subclasses for)
It aids allies (which is about half of the roster).


If you filtered for the options that were all three of those, you'd end up with 10 or so valid builds that got very close to the concept being described, of varying levels of each bullet. There wasn't much definition though of what multiclassing couldn't provide.

You provided exactly that.

I do think that a Barbarian that grows in size, and has bonuses to grappling, would be a perfect subclass to make. Grappling, itself, isn't really the mechanic you're going for. Grappling, the mechanic, is only about dragging people using Strength. What you're looking for are Grappling Maneuvers, which the game doesn't yet support. It could, with the right homebrew, but it's impossible to recreate within the game in its current condition. And that impossibility is a perfect enough reason to justify it as new content.

Summoning is...less so. "Summoning" is a pretty broad term, which can be complicated when considering spells like Bigby's Hand, Animate Dead or Find Familiar. Not only that, but more minions generally means more attacks, and a shear quantity of attacks can be very effective in 5e. So much so that the Monk is considered one of the highest damage, low level characters you can play, despite having a 1d4 damage die.

Additionally, it'd have to be implemented in a way that does not appear redundant when compared to the Chainlock, the Conjuration Wizard AND the Shepherds Druid. I think the simplest way of implementing it would probably be a suite of Warlock additions, including a Patron and Invocations. Something like the "Enslaver Patron", which is all about Charming/Forcing creatures into doing your bidding (just like what your Patron did to you), or something like that.

[Max_Killjoy]

Max, I had a long reply written up when I realized that talking to you about D&D is futile. Your tastes on the matter are so firmly fixed that nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. You're right, D&D is not a game you like. But that doesn't make it bad, nor does it make it unsuccessful at doing what it claims to do.


In this case it seems more like the combination of fixations on "emulating archetypes" and "Adventuring uber alles" has lead to some gatekeeping as to what is and is not an "appropriate archetype".

In a system that purports to be about exploration and uncovering lost secrets and delving into ruins and solving puzzles and traps... it seems very odd to say that characters are only defined by how they hurt stuff and break things, and how their "main stat" connects to that ability -- and that characters who are based on their wits, intellect, knowledge, etc, have no place.

Setting aside my bewilderment at the appeal of "emulating an archetype" or using an existing character as the core of your own character, I could easily see basing a non-casting or minimally-casting character for that sort of campaign on the version of Sherlock from the series Elementary, a character remarkably adept at putting seemingly unrelated facts together, picking up tiny clues and signs, solving puzzles, understanding the significance of "trivial" things, etc. But, the game system as it is clearly doesn't support that sort of INT-driven character, even adapted to the setting/"genre", despite it being IMO pretty damn appropriate for the things you're saying the game is focused on.


Going back to the Indiana Jones example... either his intelligence and knowledge are core to the adventuring he does on-screen (and never mind the lead-up to it that occurs off-screen, where he's learning all this stuff and planning his expeditions)... or you have to somehow define "adventuring" to mean "hitting stuff and breaking it" and claim that things like solving puzzles and overcoming traps aren't "adventuring" in order to reduce his character to a bog-standard DEX-Rogue with the INT and Skills as a sideline.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I would also point to the Saltmarsh module Danger at Dunwater as an example of an adventure that, done correctly, really should involve no Str, Dex or Con checks, attack rolls, saving throws or damage rolls at all. There can be more to this game than stabbing orcs, making reflex saves and casting fireball.

There's a precedent for using Wis and Cha for non-casting mechanics, and in previous editions there was plenty of support for using Int in the same way. There's even some support for it in 5E; it just happens to be attached to a casting class.

[NatureKing]

I would also point to the Saltmarsh module Danger at Dunwater as an example of an adventure that, done correctly, really should involve no Str, Dex or Con checks, attack rolls, saving throws or damage rolls at all. There can be more to this game than stabbing orcs, making reflex saves and casting fireball.

There's a precedent for using Wis and Cha for non-casting mechanics, and in previous editions there was plenty of support for using Int in the same way. There's even some support for it in 5E; it just happens to be attached to a casting class.

I entirely disagree, there can be more to a game. In which case, find one that is not 5e.

[Finback]

I'm sure others have said it, but a Str-based monk option. The one who can shatter a stone with one punch, who isn't about being quick or nimble and flipping around the battlefield, but just uses grapples and heavy body blows to take down foes.

[The Jack]

Arcane half caster.

divine third caster.

Great leader.(as in, the character type is more leader than warrior or mage)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Arcane half caster.

divine third caster.

Great leader.(as in, the character type is more leader than warrior or mage)

Leadership is a roleplaying aspect, and Purple Dragon Knight covers it well mechanically, allowing you to sacrifice your opportunities to be the damage dealer and guide an ally instead. The subclass is lackluster as a whole though.

Divine Third Caster interests me though. Would it be a Rogue or Fighter subclass? Barbarian and Monk aren't really open to the idea of having spellcasting straight up, they're usually very limited in that regard.

[NatureKing]

I'm sure others have said it, but a Str-based monk option. The one who can shatter a stone with one punch, who isn't about being quick or nimble and flipping around the battlefield, but just uses grapples and heavy body blows to take down foes.

Nothing preventing you from sacking Dex and just running with Medium or Heavy Armour if you can gain Prof. Only things you lose are movement speed and unarmoured defense. Refluff your Dodge as solid body, your Stunning strikes as body checks...

[JackPhoenix]

Nothing preventing you from sacking Dex and just running with Medium or Heavy Armour if you can gain Prof. Only things you lose are movement speed and unarmoured defense. Refluff your Dodge as solid body, your Stunning strikes as body checks...

And whole Martial Arts.

[The Jack]

Leadership is a roleplaying aspect

But not a (good) mechanical one.

I want a class that could win battles through others entirely. They could be wheelchair-bound and still turning the tides of combat through tactics and oratory abilities.


Sure, full casters can do a good deal of this, conquest paladins make a great leader; but a class of pure-social strength would be an exercise in magnificence

[Willie the Duck]

Divine Third Caster interests me though. Would it be a Rogue or Fighter subclass? Barbarian and Monk aren't really open to the idea of having spellcasting straight up, they're usually very limited in that regard.

The 4-Elements Monk was strangely different from the EK and AT as a 1/3 caster for no specific reason. One could easily have a 1/3-divine based monk. It would appeal to people who got into monks during the 2e AD&D era, if no one else.


In this case it seems more like the combination of fixations on "emulating archetypes" and "Adventuring uber alles" has lead to some gatekeeping as to what is and is not an "appropriate archetype".

In a system that purports to be about exploration and uncovering lost secrets and delving into ruins and solving puzzles and traps... it seems very odd to say that characters are only defined by how they hurt stuff and break things, and how their "main stat" connects to that ability -- and that characters who are based on their wits, intellect, knowledge, etc, have no place.

There is some leftover thought that puzzles should be solved by players, not characters making rolls (much like the whole 'should diplomacy be a skill?' sideline), which pervades some of D&D. That has conspired to keep skills from being as significant as they are in other games (RQ, GURPS, etc.). However, there is no reason why a wits, intellect, knowledge, non-spellcasting D&D character shouldn't exist. Particularly if everything doesn't have to be a "main stat." Back in the TSR days, having a fighter with a 14 Int or Thief with a 13 Wis was not absurd, particularly since putting that in Str or Con didn't change combat/defensive prowess. I wonder if the WotC era stat bonus table and saves (which are a lot more stat-dependent than before) have had unintended consequences.


Setting aside my bewilderment at the appeal of "emulating an archetype" or using an existing character as the core of your own character, I could easily see basing a non-casting or minimally-casting character for that sort of campaign on the version of Sherlock from the series Elementary, a character remarkably adept at putting seemingly unrelated facts together, picking up tiny clues and signs, solving puzzles, understanding the significance of "trivial" things, etc. But, the game system as it is clearly doesn't support that sort of INT-driven character, even adapted to the setting/"genre", despite it being IMO pretty damn appropriate for the things you're saying the game is focused on.

Going back to the Indiana Jones example... either his intelligence and knowledge are core to the adventuring he does on-screen (and never mind the lead-up to it that occurs off-screen, where he's learning all this stuff and planning his expeditions)... or you have to somehow define "adventuring" to mean "hitting stuff and breaking it" and claim that things like solving puzzles and overcoming traps aren't "adventuring" in order to reduce his character to a bog-standard DEX-Rogue with the INT and Skills as a sideline.

Indy is an Int-rogue unless the gaming group considers player knowledge/decision-making more important than character knowledge/decision-making. He's also a Dex/Str rogue in that he runs and climbs and leaps about a lot (although, as I'm sure someone would point out if I did not, 5e actually states that a lot of that doesn't require a Athletics or Acrobatics roll at all).


There's a precedent for using Wis and Cha for non-casting mechanics, and in previous editions there was plenty of support for using Int in the same way. There's even some support for it in 5E; it just happens to be attached to a casting class.

I think a lot of experiments with using 'non-spell game-mechanic widgits' did not move over to 5e. In 3e there were factotums, ToB, people using the Knowledge Devotion feat to emulate the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes, Snowflake Wardance, and a bunch of stuff which in 5e became the expertise class feature and Shillelagh/Hexblade class feature.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I think a lot of experiments with using 'non-spell game-mechanic widgits' did not move over to 5e. In 3e there were factotums, ToB, people using the Knowledge Devotion feat to emulate the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes, Snowflake Wardance, and a bunch of stuff which in 5e became the expertise class feature and Shillelagh/Hexblade class feature.

Undeniably true - though there's also the bladesinger Int-to-AC class feature, which was attached to a number of 'mundane' classes in 3E.

[Willie the Duck]

Undeniably true - though there's also the bladesinger Int-to-AC class feature, which was attached to a number of 'mundane' classes in 3E.

I'm sure, depending on how much we stretch the criteria, we could find as many examples as we care to. Regardless, as much as these things can be fluffed as the character using their guile and caginess to win the day, it also can feed into the not using the Intelligence stat as Intelligence, so much as a arbitrary combat effectiveness stat that people have been going back and forth on.

[Man_Over_Game]

But not a (good) mechanical one.

I want a class that could win battles through others entirely. They could be wheelchair-bound and still turning the tides of combat through tactics and oratory abilities.


Sure, full casters can do a good deal of this, conquest paladins make a great leader; but a class of pure-social strength would be an exercise in magnificence

There's a few problems with a concept like this:

Each creature has resources that need to be utilized (Action, Bonus Action, Reaction, Movement).
Allowing things to be done remotely, with few resources, results in stagnant strategies (Example: Mastermind Rogue).


Even to a caster, things like movement and AC matter, and while a caster might rely on a few specific spells, they're always constantly burning through resources. They always have to gauge the situation and create the best solution for the job. There are always gears turning.

But something akin to a Mastermind spending his Action and Bonus Action and Reaction to Help a ranged target? ARE gears really turning there? Does positioning really matter? Not that much.

Additionally, certain resources are made better by certain builds. Granting an out-of-turn attack might not mean much to a Warlock, but what about to a Rogue or a Barbarian?



For something like a "Leadership" character, we need to make sure that:


Speed (the mechanical term) matters.
It's incentivized to create a new strategy, every round.
It's more than just a buff-bot to abuse synergies for specific characters.



They solved those problems in the Mastermind and Battle Master by making those builds still rely on the core class concepts (Commander's Strike is expensive, limited, and the Fighter can always attack really efficiently. The Mastermind will almost always do more damage by making the attack himself rather than spending his Action to grant Advantage).

We don't want another scenario similar to ranged attacking, where all you do is stand far away and press a single button. At least ranged attacks have to worry about Cover (which, as a friendly PSA, allies count against you as 1/2 cover), which means that positioning matters.

I could kinda see it as a short range (15 feet) Command Radius, within which you have a lot of options that all tax your turn resources.

For example:


Action + Bonus Action: Grant an ally within your Command Radius to make an attack, or cast an attack cantrip, with their Reaction against a target within your Command Radius
Action: Grant someone within your Command Radius Temporary HP equal to your Charisma + Level. It lasts until the start of your next turn.
Action: An ally within your Command Radius that was Dying gains 1 HP.
Bonus Action: Designate a weakness in a target within your Command Radius. The next attack against the target deals extra damage equal to your Charisma.
Bonus Action: Scan a target within your Command Radius for a weakness. You learn a vulnerability and a resistance of the enemy (if any).
Bonus Action + Reaction: Make an ally within your Command Radius aware of an incoming threat if there is no enemy within 15 feet of the ally. Whenever an enemy moves within 15 feet or closer to the Ally, both you and the ally may spend their Reactions for the ally to cast a cantrip or make an attack with the enemy as the target. If the attack hits, the enemy's movement is reduced to 0.
Reaction: Help an ally within your Command Radius.
Reaction: An ally within your Command Radius gains Advantage on an effect that you can see that causes a Saving Throw.
Reaction: An attack, that you can see, against an ally, that is within your Command Radius, is made with Disadvantage.


This ensures that you have lots of decisions to make, while constantly being limited by wanting to do all of them, as well as requiring positioning and availability to play a major part.

[Max_Killjoy]

There is some leftover thought that puzzles should be solved by players, not characters making rolls (much like the whole 'should diplomacy be a skill?' sideline), which pervades some of D&D. That has conspired to keep skills from being as significant as they are in other games (RQ, GURPS, etc.). However, there is no reason why a wits, intellect, knowledge, non-spellcasting D&D character should exist. Particularly if everything doesn't have to be a "main stat." Back in the TSR days, having a fighter with a 14 Int or Thief with a 13 Wis was not absurd, particularly since putting that in Str or Con didn't change combat/defensive prowess. I wonder if the WotC era stat bonus table and saves (which are a lot more stat-dependent than before) have had unintended consequences.


At the spot I bolded -- did you mean "should" or "shouldn't"? "Should" seems to contradict the rest of your point, but maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly.




Indy is an Int-rogue unless the gaming group considers player knowledge/decision-making more important than character knowledge/decision-making. He's also a Dex/Str rogue in that he runs and climbs and leaps about a lot (although, as I'm sure someone would point out if I did not, 5e actually states that a lot of that doesn't require a Athletics or Acrobatics roll at all).


Something to consider there. Gamers seem to have no problem with someone playing a character who is stronger, tougher, faster, than them, who has fantastic abilities that they could never hope to have from impossible reflexes to outright spellcasting. But for some gamers, the idea of someone playing a character who is significantly smarter than the player is a giant red flag. :smallconfused:

I'm of the opinion that there should be a way for a player to have a character smarter or more charming or more knowledgeable than they are, and be able to fall back on a combination of dice and the GM to help them do so. It's not that the player should never try to solve the puzzle or say the right thing or learn important things about the setting -- it's that the character shouldn't be limited by the player in those regards any more than physical differences.

[monkey3]

There are a few archetypes missing. I'll put them in my favorite order:

1) Beastmaster : the guy who trains a bunch of animals to do his bidding. Rhinoceros to trample the opponent. Weasel to steal the bracelet. Scorpions to poison. Should be able to have a dozen different animals at all times.

2) Malconvoker: (From 3.5) Tricky bastard who summons and lies to demons and make them do his bidding.

3) Necromancer: The real version with permanent undead

4) Summoner: (pathfinder) who contribute by summoning mostly.

Yes, there is a minionmaster theme about my list.

[Man_Over_Game]

There are a few archetypes missing. I'll put them in my favorite order:

1) Beastmaster : the guy who trains a bunch of animals to do his bidding. Rhinoceros to trample the opponent. Weasel to steal the bracelet. Scorpions to poison. Should be able to have a dozen different animals at all times.

2) Malconvoker: (From 3.5) Tricky bastard who summons and lies to demons and make them do his bidding.

3) Necromancer: The real version with permanent undead

4) Summoner: (pathfinder) who contribute by summoning mostly.

Yes, there is a minionmaster theme about my list.

What would be the optimal way of adding a summon-focused concept that doesn't slow down the game?

[Willie the Duck]

At the spot I bolded -- did you mean "should" or "shouldn't"? "Should" seems to contradict the rest of your point, but maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly.

Nope, you read it right but it had a typo/omission in it. I read these threads and type this stuff up in notepad in between meetings and the like and sometimes it gets garbled. I know it's putting a burden on those reading my posts, but people have been very accommodating, which I appreciate.


Something to consider there. Gamers seem to have no problem with someone playing a character who is stronger, tougher, faster, than them, who has fantastic abilities that they could never hope to have from impossible reflexes to outright spellcasting. But for some gamers, the idea of someone playing a character who is significantly smarter than the player is a giant red flag. :smallconfused:

Smarter and/or more convincing. Both Knowledge-type rolls and Diplomacy/Charisma checks tend to get this treatment. You're definitely not wrong. The thing is, I don't know what to do with this fact. I mean, it is a play preference issue. For some people (many of whom are just a little older than me and played the game in the first decade it existed), going into the dungeon and thinking your way around problems (with the occasional spell or extremely risky acts of violence -- which should be avoided if you know what is good for you) is the fun of the game, and reducing that down to 'my guy has a 35% in their 'circumvent complex puzzle' is directly antithetical to the fun of the game. It's been a long time since that was the dominant playstyle (and it was almost immediately contradicted with certain physical puzzles with the introduction of the thief class in supplement I), but the playstyle persists in being popular with some of the player base. D&D, particularly the more recent editions, have put some serious effort in putting some mechanics behind facilitating /accommodating those who prefer their characters to be able to be smarter or more social than they are, with non-weapon proficiencies/skills, but those have always been secondary or optional systems (or simply not seen as much support as the combat or 'use spells to solve this' subsections). But they are there (one just has to be proactive in making them important). While I have preferences on how I would do it (that do not align perfectly with any editions specific system), I recognize the challenge the designers have in pleasing all of their fanbases, and I don't think I could do a specifically better job.


I'm of the opinion that there should be a way for a player to have a character smarter or more charming or more knowledgeable than they are, and be able to fall back on a combination of dice and the GM to help them do so. It's not that the player should never try to solve the puzzle or say the right thing or learn important things about the setting -- it's that the character shouldn't be limited by the player in those regards any more than physical differences.

That's certainly a valid preference (a redundant statement, I know). Given that 5e already has ability checks and knowledge-type skills, what is it that you feel that game doesn't have (even as optional material)? Do you want a character Archetype that is 'uses knowledge to defeat surroundings' and, if so, what would the have that a high int rogue or lore bard does not have?

[monkey3]

What would be the optimal way of adding a summon-focused concept that doesn't slow down the game?

It would slow down the game. Frankly I think most of my group slows down the game by being indecisive more than I would slow it down with 3 minions, but your point is well taken.

It is up to the player to have stat cards made for his minions, and act like he and his class is on probation and will be axed if he takes too long.

[Max_Killjoy]

Nope, you read it right but it had a typo/omission in it. I read these threads and type this stuff up in notepad in between meetings and the like and sometimes it gets garbled. I know it's putting a burden on those reading my posts, but people have been very accommodating, which I appreciate.


Smarter and/or more convincing. Both Knowledge-type rolls and Diplomacy/Charisma checks tend to get this treatment. You're definitely not wrong. The thing is, I don't know what to do with this fact. I mean, it is a play preference issue. For some people (many of whom are just a little older than me and played the game in the first decade it existed), going into the dungeon and thinking your way around problems (with the occasional spell or extremely risky acts of violence -- which should be avoided if you know what is good for you) is the fun of the game, and reducing that down to 'my guy has a 35% in their 'circumvent complex puzzle' is directly antithetical to the fun of the game. It's been a long time since that was the dominant playstyle (and it was almost immediately contradicted with certain physical puzzles with the introduction of the thief class in supplement I), but the playstyle persists in being popular with some of the player base. D&D, particularly the more recent editions, have put some serious effort in putting some mechanics behind facilitating /accommodating those who prefer their characters to be able to be smarter or more social than they are, with non-weapon proficiencies/skills, but those have always been secondary or optional systems (or simply not seen as much support as the combat or 'use spells to solve this' subsections). But they are there (one just has to be proactive in making them important). While I have preferences on how I would do it (that do not align perfectly with any editions specific system), I recognize the challenge the designers have in pleasing all of their fanbases, and I don't think I could do a specifically better job.


That's certainly a valid preference (a redundant statement, I know). Given that 5e already has ability checks and knowledge-type skills, what is it that you feel that game doesn't have (even as optional material)? Do you want a character Archetype that is 'uses knowledge to defeat surroundings' and, if so, what would they have that a high int rogue or lore bard does not have?

On the first question:

It's less that the game lacks those, and more the way they're presented both in the books and in these forums... Access to Skills is spotty and broad access is pretty much locked behind the Rogue and Bard (see also, Expertise and Jack of All Trades) while those classes aren't really about "smart". The details on what Skills can and can't do is almost non-existent. And then there's the ongoing insistence from certain corners that in 5e the Skills are laser-focused on "Adventuring" and "Field Work" and can't really be used to "model" anything beyond that -- and that often they shouldn't even be rolled and aren't even needed.

Overall, it strongly gives the sense that Skills in 5e are at best a sidelight, just to be used as they to dungeon delving and hex clearing -- that Skills are there but kinda... whatever. And that INT-based, Skill-and-Tool-based, characters aren't really something the game or its advocates are interested in.


On the second question:

Often it's less a question of what they'd have that those Classes don't, and more a question of what those Classes have that such a character would not. Particularly with the Bard... CHA-based abilities, Inspiration, Bard-focused spells, etc.

[GreyBlack]

A full arcane Gish.

Sure, there's gish type classes in 5e but there's no class built around the blending of magic and martial prowess. I'm looking at something like the Magus from Pathfinder or the Duskblade from 3.5.

The closest they come is the Eldritch Knight archetype but even that is too martial for what I'm talking about. I'm talking a full on blending of a martial and Eldritch character.

I have my own ideas for this character... and actually I may even go build it!

[Mimersbrønd]

My favorite class in 3.5 was the Dragon shaman. Support melee class using auras to aid their party and with that awesome dragon theme vibe, eventually becoming a half-dragon.

I have tried to homebrew one through the paladin class (as they have some auras and is a charisma class as the Dragon Shaman was too)

[GreyBlack]

What would be the optimal way of adding a summon-focused concept that doesn't slow down the game?

Easy. Your character summons a swarm that grows more powerful. You can only have one swarm summoned at a time. Creatures separated from the swarm die immediately. You can use your action to command the swarm to attack, or you can cast a spell or summat.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Easy. Your character summons a swarm that grows more powerful. You can only have one swarm summoned at a time. Creatures separated from the swarm die immediately. You can use your action to command the swarm to attack, or you can cast a spell or summat.

What differentiates this from a single pet based subclass if the swarm of summoned creatures is effectively acting as one creature? Doesn't seem like a good way to fulfill that fantasy for players.

[GreyBlack]

What differentiates this from a single pet based subclass if the swarm of summoned creatures is effectively acting as one creature? Doesn't seem like a good way to fulfill that fantasy for players.

Swarms operate differently than single creatures, for example by conferring certain immunities and resistances. They can also move through player squares differently, can change in shape, etc.

That said... all of the minionmancy character archetypes tend to be more villainous archetypes than heroic archetypes. Specifically, I'm looking at the Necromancer and devil/demon summoner. Given that... I would be perfectly comfortable (personally, not saying for everyone) saying that either the PC's do not have access to that magic or have to discover it for themselves. At that point, the PC's get to invent the spells for themselves and design their own class flavor.

[Man_Over_Game]

Swarms operate differently than single creatures, for example by conferring certain immunities and resistances. They can also move through player squares differently, can change in shape, etc.

That said... all of the minionmancy character archetypes tend to be more villainous archetypes than heroic archetypes. Specifically, I'm looking at the Necromancer and devil/demon summoner. Given that... I would be perfectly comfortable (personally, not saying for everyone) saying that either the PC's do not have access to that magic or have to discover it for themselves. At that point, the PC's get to invent the spells for themselves and design their own class flavor.

I don't think it has to be inherently evil. A Summoner could just as well be something that creates a Homunculus from their own blood, or something akin to that.

I'm not sure a full class would be needed, though. I'd expect something like this from a Warlock option, like a level 5 Pact of the Chain Invocation that let you summon a more powerful familiar once a day.

It's fine to slow down the game a little bit, the trick is to not add so many options. Animate Dead is a bit excessive, but Find Familiar is not (because a Familiar can only do 1-2 things in combat).