Missing Class

[Techcaliber]

Hello, hello! So, I’ve been looking through the classes and, despite the multitude of options, I can’t help but feel like something is missing.

Now, this post is extremely vague, but what do you guys feel like should be added to 5e. Wild it be a spellcaster, or a physical fighter? A tank or a quick fighter?

I now that the game is great as it is, and I don’t want to receive any comments saying that this post is a waste of time or anything pointing out the problems this could cause in gameplay, I just want your fun ideas that you think should be added to the game.

Thanks in advance!

[Matrix_Walker]

I think what you're looking for is a 2/3 caster class, whose subclass determines it's spell list and Arcane-Pact-Divine nature on a nice generalist base.

[Fable Wright]

There's three fixed-spells-known Charisma-based full spellcasters in 5e. Along with the Wizard, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster.

On the other hand, there's 2 divine classes, and 2-3 (depending on how you treat Barbarian) primal classes.

Something always struck me as bizarre about that.

That ties into what I feel is missing from 5e: Spell bleed. There's no real way to make a Divine Trickster of the Laughing God, or a Primal Knight who bears ancient magic of the land against his foes. No way to get the Arcane Heirophant, who combines high level Druid and Wizard spells in the same build with unique abilities.

In short, I feel like we're missing theme bleeds. Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica added some in, but utterly failed in execution, and never gave the pure martials any benefits of the theme bleeds.

[Tawmis]

Hello, hello! So, I’ve been looking through the classes and, despite the multitude of options, I can’t help but feel like something is missing.
Now, this post is extremely vague, but what do you guys feel like should be added to 5e. Wild it be a spellcaster, or a physical fighter? A tank or a quick fighter?
I now that the game is great as it is, and I don’t want to receive any comments saying that this post is a waste of time or anything pointing out the problems this could cause in gameplay, I just want your fun ideas that you think should be added to the game.
Thanks in advance!

I wish there were a Shaman class.

Something that's a little bit of a mix between a Cleric, a Druid, with emphasis on rather than "Speak to Animals" it'd be "Speak to Spirit Animals" and "Speak with Spirits" and such.

[ad_hoc]

Hello, hello! So, I’ve been looking through the classes and, despite the multitude of options, I can’t help but feel like something is missing.

Now, this post is extremely vague, but what do you guys feel like should be added to 5e. Wild it be a spellcaster, or a physical fighter? A tank or a quick fighter?

I now that the game is great as it is, and I don’t want to receive any comments saying that this post is a waste of time or anything pointing out the problems this could cause in gameplay, I just want your fun ideas that you think should be added to the game.

Thanks in advance!

It sounds like you're looking for a class to fill a mechanical role?

The classes in D&D are chosen based on narrative role, which may be why you are seeing an imbalance.

Who the character is in the game world is more important to D&D designers than what kind of tactical options they have.

[FaerieGodfather]

Looking at Pathfinder, I'd say there's a real need for the Witch and Shifter. Do a straight-up knockoff hybrid of PF's psychic magic and psionics.

But mostly I would say the biggest "class need" is some kind of variant multiclassing system. A lot of the classes the game really needs are just hybrid variants of the existing ones.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If you ask me, 5e really needs...

A summon-focused class that can actually rely on their summons from the start.
A half-caster with a defensive focus (to balance the Paladin's offensive focus and the Ranger's utility focus)
An artificer type that feels better than the UA versions.

Which is why all of those things are in my Guide to Greatness :smalltongue:

[Nagog]

Here's what I feel is missing from D&D from the various standpoints:

Mechanically:

Area Control class. I feel the Ranger has good potential for it, but as is the closest one class comes to an area control class is the Battlesmith Artificer with their turrets, but the flavor of Artificer doesn't really fit the battlefield control feel like a Ranger would.

More versatility for the Sorcerer. This is a bit of a sore spot on the Forums, but as is I have next to no desire to play a straight Sorcerer because I feel they don't really have much besides Metamagic, and while Metamagic is nice, there isn't much reason in my eyes to keep going Sorcerer after 3 or 4 levels max as the spell slot/known gain is slow for a full caster and the only other appeal is more sorcery points (as I feel the Metamagic abilities each lend to a different playstyle, so I'd only really need one or two for my playstyle of choice for the character).

Thematically: Agreed with the above posters on a Shaman/Witch style class. Perhaps a form of arcane spell caster with a few healing and support spells mixed in, as a form of Arcane Support (As a note, I feel Bards are stretched too thin across all the different areas they cover to truly fill this niche).

I'd also love a better Warlock. Don't get me wrong, I love the Warlock class mechanically, but thematically the effects don't feel all that Warlock-ey. I imagine a Warlock to be more like Dr.Facillier from the Disney movie Princess and the Frog, while the current 5e Warlock has effects closer to Jafar from Aladdin (who is said in the movie to be a Sorcerer, but 5e Sorcerers have their own issues, expressed above).

[firelistener]

I honestly don't think anything else is needed. Some could be added, like Artificer, and things still be balanced well, but I really haven't encountered a character I couldn't build with what we have already.

For witches/shamans, I especially disagree. My favorite character ever was a totem barbarian that focused on speaking to spirits. I've built several witches as friendly and foe NPCs for the campaign I've been running, and they have been:
Sorcerers because they had innate fire/swamp powers.
A warlock because she stole a flaming skull artifact from a demon lord and unlocked it's power.
A wizard because she was originally a necromancer's apprentice and ran away.
And a druid that was part of the same tribe as my barbarian.

All of those were witches in the same coven that focused on fire/swamp spells.

While the D&D classes suggest certain archetypes, the rules surrounding them are mechanical, not narrative. You are free to make a posh noble with the barbarian class and a foul-mouthed feral warrior with the bard class. The question a class answers is not "who is your character and how do they act?" but rather "How does your character do what they do?"

[JellyPooga]

While the D&D classes suggest certain archetypes, the rules surrounding them are mechanical, not narrative. You are free to make a posh noble with the barbarian class and a foul-mouthed feral warrior with the bard class. The question a class answers is not "who is your character and how do they act?" but rather "How does your character do what they do?"

To back this up and expand a little;

"What is your character?" = Race
"Who is your character?" = Background
"How do they do what they do best?" = Class
"Why do they do what they do?" = You, the player!

[Nagog]

I honestly don't think anything else is needed. Some could be added, like Artificer, and things still be balanced well, but I really haven't encountered a character I couldn't build with what we have already.

For witches/shamans, I especially disagree. My favorite character ever was a totem barbarian that focused on speaking to spirits. I've built several witches as friendly and foe NPCs for the campaign I've been running, and they have been:
Sorcerers because they had innate fire/swamp powers.
A warlock because she stole a flaming skull artifact from a demon lord and unlocked it's power.
A wizard because she was originally a necromancer's apprentice and ran away.
And a druid that was part of the same tribe as my barbarian.

All of those were witches in the same coven that focused on fire/swamp spells.

While the D&D classes suggest certain archetypes, the rules surrounding them are mechanical, not narrative. You are free to make a posh noble with the barbarian class and a foul-mouthed feral warrior with the bard class. The question a class answers is not "who is your character and how do they act?" but rather "How does your character do what they do?"


To back this up and expand a little;

"What is your character?" = Race
"Who is your character?" = Background
"How do they do what they do best?" = Class
"Why do they do what they do?" = You, the player!


Yes and no. It's quite possible to "Make Do" with what's available, but there are thematic and mechanical builds that are in the range of impossible to unplayable (due to extreme MADness, lack of proper thematic elements, improper builds, etc.). The example of a Witch tends to be focused more on the body than any of the arcane classes, so to make a classic witch, you'd need a combination of Cleric (healing spells), Wizard (Arcane spells/curses), and Artificer (Alcemist specifically for potions). Not only would the build be MAD as hell, it would cost a lot of levels and you'd gain a lot of extra features that don't really fit the vibe of a Witch. Same could be said for Shaman, with the typical Shaman being somewhere between the Warlock, Cleric, and Totem Barbarian, which has the same issues. So while yes, it is possible, it's clunky and near impossible to play as a PC, even if you roll for stats and roll really, really well.

Now I'm a huge fan of building one class to play like another (like a Paladin (ranger playstyle), a Wizard (rogue/monk playstyle) and a Barbarian (Monk playstyle)), but there are simply some builds that are mechanically impossible to play as a PC effectively.

[ImperiousLeader]

Missing Classes/potential subclasses:
- Psionics. I was expecting this month's UA to be a revamped approach to Psionics and I'm getting a little impatient for info on Psionics.
- A summoner, pet oriented class. Your Pokemon trainer-esque class. If using Astral Constructs, could be Psionics. Could also be a full Necromancer class.
- A Metamorph/Shapeshifter class. This, again, might be a Psionics option. Also, a Sorcerer subclass. Or a full class in itself.
- Other magic systems? Shadow Magic, Incarnum, something that isn't just another spell slot using spellcaster.
- Tome of Battle, or some type of Martial Power system. Could be just new subclasses, or require a new base class.

[Spacehamster]

Some more subclasses that feel like a mix of two classes, a thug fighter with expertise in two skills instead of 4 and half sneak attack progression would be neat,

1/3 divine caster barbarian in style of the 3.5 prestige class champion of guendwylf(or smthn such).

[Ninja_Prawn]

I honestly don't think anything else is needed.

I agree with this. Especially given all the homebrew base classes I've seen in my time, I've don't think I ever encountered one that was filling a legitimate gap that couldn't be covered by a new subclass for an existing class.

Even out of the base classes my MHP colleagues have written, the only two that I actually see a justification for are our witch (which is a single-target debuffer with a curse-y theme) and our gunslinger (which is a ranged crit-fisher with a wild west theme). I'd hardly say the core rules need those things to be added in, though.

[Techcaliber]

It sounds like you're looking for a class to fill a mechanical role?

The classes in D&D are chosen based on narrative role, which may be why you are seeing an imbalance.

Who the character is in the game world is more important to D&D designers than what kind of tactical options they have.

Thanks for the question. I’m not trying to fill any specific role, whether mechanical or narrative. I just want to know your guys’ opinion on what would be fun to add to the game.

When I gave ideas, such as tank or healer, I was just trying to get people thinking.

Thanks again!

[Sigreid]

I've toyed with the idea of homebrewing a pet class I jokingly call the pokemon master. The concept would be you have a pet, fae, fiend, celectial or elemental that evolves as you level up; coupled with abilities that let you strengthen your pet temporarily at a cost to yourself. Things such as transferring some of the damage the pet takes to themselves.

[Bjarkmundur]

I would like a psuedo-summoner, like the kind that has spells that summon entities that threaten squares. I'm not sure on the terminology, but I think that's a Shaman.

[Reevh]

An arcane half-caster gish that feels less mechanical and more magical than the Artificer.

[bloodshed343]

I feel like the Sorcerer is a bad fit for a full caster. Thematically and mechanically they should be a non-caster with supernatural abilities based on their bloodline, in a manner similar to the Tome of Battle classes. This would also serve as a foil to the eastern-asian influenced themes of the Monk class by representing the demigods and other supernatural characters found in many classical literary traditions.

Right now there's just not a need for a third Charisma-based full caster.

[JellyPooga]

Yes and no. It's quite possible to "Make Do" with what's available, but there are thematic and mechanical builds that are in the range of impossible to unplayable (due to extreme MADness, lack of proper thematic elements, improper builds, etc.).

While I agree that some, very few, concepts may be hard or impossible, I think it's important to remember the impact of character level vs. your concept and that the current classes are not a thematic straight-jacket. To use your example of a Witch, is there any aspect of being a Witch that a single Class Druid cannot do that your multiclass monstrosity can? The Druid can control the environment, change shape, curse others, heal and make potions. A small dip into Warlock or Wizard might round out some features, but we're hardly looking at some super-MAD unplayable build.

I would argue that if you have a concept that you can't build using the current stable of character classes, then either your concept is inappropriate for D&D (e.g. a Cyberpunk Hacker is a cool concept, but pointless to try and build in D&D), has too many powers/abilities from early level that you want to squeeze in (i.e. the "spoiled brat" concept; e.g. "I want to be a demi god as a class, but I want all the powers from lvl.1"), or that imagination is lacking (e.g. your example of a Witch and not looking at Druid in the light of what you expect from the Class/character you want).

[Arkhios]

Looking at Pathfinder, I'd say there's a real need for the Witch --

Looking at Pathfinder's Witch, I see 5th edition Warlock. Hexes and sinister magic. Not necessarily evil, but definitely suspicious.

In other words, I don't think there's a real need for the Witch. Besides, originally, the word Warlock has been used to refer to a male witch (regardless of what the games we play tell us; those words are not invented by the game designers. They've been used in real life for far longer than we've had any roleplaying games around).

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I will like something like a crusader form 3.5e.
A non caster idealistic fighter that focus on healing, buffing and bypassing enemy defence.

[Contrast]

The last thing we need is more casters.

More martial options is where it's at.

[Arkhios]

The last thing we need is more casters.

More martial options is where it's at.

Can't argue with that. My personal favorite of a missing class is still a Warlord-like martial class. I don't think either Banneret or Battle Master really fill the concept, while both certainly do a decent job at doing parts of it. The name could (should even) be changed though, because similar to Warlock, warlord has a somewhat negative meaning. For Warlock, it certainly fits, but a warlord doesn't have to be a warmongering tyrannical conqueror. Great armies of our long (yet bloody) history have had inspiring leaders just as much as the aforementioned tyrants. For example, Attila, Dareios, and Genghis Khan would categorize as the latter. Wars have also been fought to free a nation and its people from under the yoke of their oppressors (as for examples of inspiring leaders in war efforts: Finland had Marshal Mannerheim. Scotland had William Wallace. United States of America had Commander-in-Chief George Washington)

[FaerieGodfather]

Looking at Pathfinder's Witch, I see 5th edition Warlock. Hexes and sinister magic. Not necessarily evil, but definitely suspicious.

Witches are healers. Warlocks only gain that capacity from Celestial Patron or multiclassing.

[Arkhios]

Witches are healers. Warlocks only gain that capacity from Celestial Patron or multiclassing.

Witches also have hexes such as Agony, Blight, Child-scent, Cook People, Evil-eye, Infected Wounds, and Misfortune, to name a few. In what world being able to track children by smell doesn't sound suspiciously sinister? Or causing agony, cooking people, infecting wounds, blighting nature?

It's all a matter of perspective and what you choose to see.

Witches can be healers, sure, but they are much more than just that. Likewise, Warlocks can be healers just the same. Unlike in Pathfinder, in 5th edition you don't have a "base class" separated from its archetypes. All classes must choose one at one point. In the case of Warlocks, the choice is made at first level, and as such, having Celestial Patron (and thus, access to healing magic) is just as likely as having Fiend Patron (which, by the way, is pretty iconic as a traditional witch. Especially if you take the Pact of the Tome to recieve The Book of Shadows)

[Tanarii]

D&D 5e is the return to the classics edition. The designers intentionally looked back to AD&D/Classic and 3e, retained some 4e innovations, and tried to design a game that would draw in new players (most critical), but also appeal the three grognard fan bases (4e, 3e, and pre-TETSNBN*).

Which is why it's got the nine of the classic ten classes, with Assassin and Thief rolled into one per modern sensibilities, plus the modern variant of the Bard at a tenth class. Then they added the two new but well established classes (Sorcerer, Warlock).

The same goes for the races, with mostly the classics, but the two new well established races, Dragonborn and Tiefling.
(I personally found it disappointing they were included but that's neither here nor there. I certainly understand why they qualify.)

There was no chance that we were going to see anything truly innovative, nor hotly controversial (e.g. psionics or artificers).


The classes in D&D are chosen based on narrative role, which may be why you are seeing an imbalance.
Not really. They decided to emphasize a narrative role. But they were mostly chosen for historical reasons, with the two newcomers being very well established at this point.

-------
*TETSNBN = The Edition That Shall Not Be Named, aka 3e. A large chunk of the fan base reviled 3e and refused to covert. And I'm confident that happened with 2e release too. The publishers alienating a large chunk of the fan base with drastic revisions, arguments over if the new edition is really successful or the company is sugar coating it, and full blown edition wars, are nothing new.

[Millstone85]

A large chunk of the fan base reviled 3e and refused to covert. And I'm confident that happened with 2e release too.And again with 4e.

[Fnissalot]

I am missing a int half-caster in line with ranger and paladin. I think it should be a battle scholar/tactician/warlord as that would fit with an int focused martial class who studied the schools of fighting and art of war. It could have a subclass that uses math to do trickshots and such.

I also think it would be nice with more options for non-caster classes for low fantasy settings, but I am not sure of exactly what.

[Tanarii]

And again with 4e.
Hmm, I thought that was the clear context of my historical footnote, but apparently not. :smallamused:

[Eldariel]

Non-casters with competitive 11-20 levels. Also, Warlord/Marshal style martial leader/inspirer. That's the single biggest unexplored design space in 5e. Though frankly, competent Fighter and Barbarian should have some leadership abilities woven into their base chassis: when their basic shtick fails, they could at least enhance others.

[Bundin]

The reworked Artificer scratches my tinker itch, even though it's based on magic. Understandable, as it avoids duplicating a system that can just as easily be reskinned. And in the end, dnd is magical, not steampunky. I'm not missing Psionics, because to me that's just a mind magic sorcerer. Different names, same effect, just reskin it at the table if that's your thing.

Druids are versatile enough already, I don't really see the need for a half-druid. Rangers are still not in a great spot, but they're not completely missing. Maneuvering dice exist for a reason (maybe add some higher level, stronger effects). And while a primal caster might be a good addition, I'd prefer something more unique in the martial department. But as I can't really put my finger on what exactly it is I'm missing...

So yeah, I feel the bases are pretty much covered. I'm not a fan of having the 3.5e Favoured Soul being tacked onto the Sorc base, or the 4e Avenger being added to Paladin (although it's a decent fit, I guess), the options are there to mostly recreate those types of characters.

[ImperiousLeader]

While I do think, aside from my earlier offerings, a lot of narrative options have been covered, what I'm interested in is mechanical exploration of 5e. I want some more complicated, crunchier classes. Classes that aren't just another spellcaster or fighter, but does different things. In 3.5, we had Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic, even 4e Essentials broke away from the normal modes of how classes were designed for those editions. And I want to see those kinds of things in 5e.

[TripleD]

“Combat Trapsmith”/“Trapmaster”. The ability to lay mundane traps quickly and alter the battlefield was a neat ability in 3.5. Kind of wish Rangers had gotten it in 5e.

[Talionis]

From 3.5

Combat trapsmith
Factotum
Chameleon
Incarnates
Totemist
Marshall
Swordsage
Binder

[Grod_The_Giant]

While I do think, aside from my earlier offerings, a lot of narrative options have been covered, what I'm interested in is mechanical exploration of 5e. I want some more complicated, crunchier classes. Classes that aren't just another spellcaster or fighter, but does different things. In 3.5, we had Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic, even 4e Essentials broke away from the normal modes of how classes were designed for those editions. And I want to see those kinds of things in 5e.
Very much agreed. I've been working on it; I rebuilt Psionics, made an artificer (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/267038/Grods-Guide-to-Greatness) that follows its own rules, and redid the Warlock as an at-will-invocation-only class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?569312-Spell-Less-Warlock-Redesign), but we could definitely do with updated versions of the Binder, Incarnate/Totemist, and Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader. Maybe I'll add those to my list...
----------------


Missing Classes/potential subclasses:
- Psionics. I was expecting this month's UA to be a revamped approach to Psionics and I'm getting a little impatient for info on Psionics.
Did that for you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?593739-Psionics-Reloaded-the-Psion-and-Psychic-Warrior-%28PEACH%29).


- A summoner, pet oriented class. Your Pokemon trainer-esque class. If using Astral Constructs, could be Psionics. Could also be a full Necromancer class.
Did that for you (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/267038/Grods-Guide-to-Greatness).


- A Metamorph/Shapeshifter class. This, again, might be a Psionics option. Also, a Sorcerer subclass. Or a full class in itself.
Did that for you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585774-The-Wildling-%28Shapeshifting-Base-Class%29). Also as a psionic subclass (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?593739-Psionics-Reloaded-the-Psion-and-Psychic-Warrior-%28PEACH%29).


An arcane half-caster gish that feels less mechanical and more magical than the Artificer.
Did that for you (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/267038/Grods-Guide-to-Greatness).


Non-casters with competitive 11-20 levels. Also, Warlord/Marshal style martial leader/inspirer. That's the single biggest unexplored design space in 5e. Though frankly, competent Fighter and Barbarian should have some leadership abilities woven into their base chassis: when their basic shtick fails, they could at least enhance others.
Did that for you (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/267038/Grods-Guide-to-Greatness) as a Fighter subclass.

[ad_hoc]

Not really. They decided to emphasize a narrative role. But they were mostly chosen for historical reasons, with the two newcomers being very well established at this point.

Agreed. I guess I see that as one and the same.

They're chosen because there are stories about them and they fit into the narrative of the world.

This is in contrast to, for example, making sure there are 2 casters for each stat. That would be a mechanical decision.

[Tawmis]

For witches/shamans, I especially disagree. My favorite character ever was a totem barbarian that focused on speaking to spirits.


Which is fine. That's exactly how I'd imagine a totem barbarian. But to me, I think of the "primitive" types (which, I often think barbarians; and other monster humanoids, such as Orcs, Goblins, etc), rather than having a cleric - they might have Shamans. Similar to the idea of Native Americans who relied on Shamans, rather than Priests. That mixture that is both Cleric and Druid, and a focus with speaking and dealing with spirits as well to draw their knowledge and power from; rather than gods specifically. Especially among people who don't believe "in the gods" and rather trust what their Shaman tells them, by the results of rolling some goblin teeth in a cup on a piece of elk leather tells them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which is fine. That's exactly how I'd imagine a totem barbarian. But to me, I think of the "primitive" types (which, I often think barbarians; and other monster humanoids, such as Orcs, Goblins, etc), rather than having a cleric - they might have Shamans. Similar to the idea of Native Americans who relied on Shamans, rather than Priests. That mixture that is both Cleric and Druid, and a focus with speaking and dealing with spirits as well to draw their knowledge and power from; rather than gods specifically. Especially among people who don't believe "in the gods" and rather trust what their Shaman tells them, by the results of rolling some goblin teeth in a cup on a piece of elk leather tells them.

Isn't that a druid?

I've always seen druids as working in the following way:

Druids gain power by speaking to and making deals with the natural spirits that inhabit everything around us. Big or small--the spirit of that rock as well as the spirit of the mountain. Their spells are them feeding the spirit a bit of energy in exchange for the spirit channeling the spell through the druid. Just like a cleric channels divine power, druids channel the power of nature spirits. Even their wildshape involves these spirits--they call on the spirit of a particular beast and form a body out of spirit energy, dissolving their body into this new "wrapper". The spirit still deals with the mechanics (otherwise learning to fly would be challenging, as even would walking normally), but the druid's spirit rides along and is in the driver's seat.

This is a perfect match for a shaman archetype. In fact, I treat my "tribal shamans" as either being druid-like or bard-like, depending on the tribe. It's got all the spells, fluff, etc you need IMO.

[8wGremlin]

So it looks like we have:

3 chassis - full warrior, full caster, full skill monkey
3 half chassis - 1/2 caster/warrior etc
6 thirds chassis - 1/3 caster/warrior etc,


We also seem to have 3 ways of accessing magic

Bargain (like a cleric, druid, warlock)
Learning (like a wizard, bard)
Innate (like a sorcerer, paladin, ranger)


and 3 power types?

Divine (from the planes)
Arcane (how the universe is built)
Spirits (from nature and the spirits that make it up)


might be nice to have a character creation system based on this?

that way you could have
1/3 Combat/Caster that gets its power innately from the Divine = Paladin
1/3 Combat/Caster that gets its power learning from the Arcane= Eldritch Knight
1/3 Combat/Caster that gets its power by bargaining from the Spirits = Ranger

or

1/3 skills/caster that gets its power from learning from the Arcane = Arcane Trickster

or

1/2 Caster/Skills that gets its power by bargaining with the Divine = Binder?

and yes it would require a reworking of spells, etc.
Have I missed anything or need to rethink this?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So it looks like we have:

3 chassis - full warrior, full caster, full skill monkey
3 half chassis - 1/2 caster/warrior etc
6 thirds chassis - 1/3 caster/warrior etc,


We also seem to have 3 ways of accessing magic

Bargain (like a cleric, druid, warlock)
Learning (like a wizard, bard)
Innate (like a sorcerer, paladin, ranger)


and 3 power types?

Divine (from the planes)
Arcane (how the universe is built)
Spirits (from nature and the spirits that make it up)


might be nice to have a character creation system based on this?

that way you could have
1/3 Combat/Caster that gets its power innately from the Divine = Paladin
1/3 Combat/Caster that gets its power learning from the Arcane= Eldritch Knight
1/3 Combat/Caster that gets its power by bargaining from the Spirits = Ranger

or

1/3 skills/caster that gets its power from learning from the Arcane = Arcane Trickster

or

1/2 Caster/Skills that gets its power by bargaining with the Divine = Binder?

and yes it would require a reworking of spells, etc.
Have I missed anything or need to rethink this?

Sounds like a good thing...for a point-buy system.

5e classes are built around themes, archetypes, and fluff. This kind of mix-and-match process doesn't fit well with those. You'd also have severe issues with sub-classes, which are essential to 5e's design. So you're looking at a complete rewrite of the entire character-build process and much of the rest of the system.

[Trickery]

I'd like a martial character who can play support. Currently, you can build some rogues and fighters to provide the help action, commanding strike, protection fighting style, etc. And Open Hand monks excel at setting mobs up to get killed by hard-hitting martials. But it's all very limited in scope. There are no martials who can do things at all similar to the myriad of support spells like haste, longstrider, jump, stoneskin, or (God forbid) foresight.

[8wGremlin]

Sounds like a good thing...for a point-buy system.

5e classes are built around themes, archetypes, and fluff. This kind of mix-and-match process doesn't fit well with those. You'd also have severe issues with sub-classes, which are essential to 5e's design. So you're looking at a complete rewrite of the entire character-build process and much of the rest of the system.

Yeah, It's a bit like the 2nd Editions Player Option Splat book type concept.
You have the original game, and then you have the Advanced Rules for those that want to use them.
That way you have the same mechanical crunch, and can have the fluff, archetypes, etc that fit with your game world, and not the canned forgotten realms.

[Millstone85]

We also seem to have 3 ways of accessing magic

Bargain (like a cleric, druid, warlock)
Learning (like a wizard, bard)
Innate (like a sorcerer, paladin, ranger)


and 3 power types?

Divine (from the planes)
Arcane (how the universe is built)
Spirits (from nature and the spirits that make it up)
Going by the PHB p205 and the DMG p13, I see it more like this:

magic

direct (arcane)

intuitive (sorcerer)
learned (wizard)
mixed (bard, warlock)

mediated (divine)

force (druid, ranger)
god (cleric)
philosophy (paladin)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, It's a bit like the 2nd Editions Player Option Splat book type concept.
You have the original game, and then you have the Advanced Rules for those that want to use them.
That way you have the same mechanical crunch, and can have the fluff, archetypes, etc that fit with your game world, and not the canned forgotten realms.

I have a very non-FR setting. Yet I have zero troubles fitting the classes into the world as written. In fact, those are the least-changed parts of my world. Races get totally changed (fluff-wise, anyway).

I have homebrewed a few classes, but more for thematic reasons than for mechanical ones. And certainly not for box-checking reasons. And frankly, none of them are all that good or needed.

Examples:
* The Savant (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNH1DpxdNWDSXCmGlJ7Ks-4WD2dOQrj43mv1Ftba-pU/edit?usp=sharing), a technomagic user/artificer/mad science user.
* The Seeker of Forms (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HH_pwZ0J6q2TqIP0YmVLyTXArlDdVgtLUapJxC77ZGU/edit?usp=sharing), an incarnum-lite class.
*The Planar Warrior (https://docs.google.com/document/d/11IqB86byjkrNwAVYrfjw5yLT9rtUFzE7MHlN4b9i_Mw/edit?usp=sharing), an INT-based, planar/elemental half-caster focused on defense.

Only the first is in actual play in my setting, by NPCs (at this point). I've used ideas from the second in past games.

[FaerieGodfather]

Witches also have hexes such as Agony, Blight, Child-scent, Cook People, Evil-eye, Infected Wounds, and Misfortune, to name a few. In what world being able to track children by smell doesn't sound suspiciously sinister? Or causing agony, cooking people, infecting wounds, blighting nature?

It's all a matter of perspective and what you choose to see.

Witches can be healers, sure, but they are much more than just that.

I think you're missing the point. Warlocks in 5e can only be healers with the Celestial Patron, which detracts considerably from their sinister nature and unduly limits the options of the character concept.

The 5e Warlock does not replicate the Witch.

[Fynzmirs]

I feel like more concepts would be playable if we just brought back ACFs from 3e, giving players the ability to trade some class features for different ones. And yeah, I know you can just talk to your DM and make him houserule something, but official (or even AL-legal) options would be a welcome addition.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel like more concepts would be playable if we just brought back ACFs from 3e, giving players the ability to trade some class features for different ones. And yeah, I know you can just talk to your DM and make him houserule something, but official (or even AL-legal) options would be a welcome addition.

They've talked about it, but it does make an awful mess of things if you're not careful. One of 5e's selling points is simplicity, and ACFs inherently blow that out of the water.

[Fynzmirs]

They've talked about it, but it does make an awful mess of things if you're not careful. One of 5e's selling points is simplicity, and ACFs inherently blow that out of the water.
I still think them being optional would not cause much trouble. Archetypes are a thing, and ACFs would be akin to feats, but trading away something different than ASI...

[PhoenixPhyre]

I still think them being optional would not cause much trouble. Archetypes are a thing, and ACFs would be akin to feats, but trading away something different than ASI...

That's just it. Most classes have a progression of abilities (much more-so than 3e). If you trade away <feature>, then a whole bunch of the rest of the class just flat out doesn't work. So you'd have to have a bunch of different classes in disguise.

Let's consider Fighters here.

Level 1:
Fighting Style: if you trade this away, Champions lose their 10th level feature.
Second Wind: PDK depend on this, but you could possibly trade this out.

Level 2:
Action Surge: 17th level feature depends on it, as does PDK.

Level 5:
Extra Attack: Uh, no. Trading this out would be a nightmare.

Level 9:
Indomitable: 13th and 17th level features depend on it.

Every feature has something that relies on it.

Druids:
Level 1:
Spellcasting: Uh...no.
Level 2:
Wildshape: invalidates a whole subclass, as well as the 18th level and 20th level features

Level 18:
Timeless Body: Ok, you could trade out this ribbon. Weee!
Beast Spells: relies on wildshape
Level 20:
Archdruid: relies on wildshape

And that applies to most, if not all the classes. So there's much less scope for ACFs in 5e than there was in 3e. Trading out pieces of the class causes havoc with subclasses, let alone further levels' features.

[Fynzmirs]

Yet I see no reason for all Rouges knowing Thieves' Cant or Paladins having their healing thouch.

You could even make a viable alternative to things Wildshape by restricting it to non-Moon druids and creating them together with alternative level 18th and 20th features.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yet I see no reason for all Rouges knowing Thieves' Cant or Paladins having their healing thouch.

You could even make a viable alternative to things Wildshape by restricting it to non-Moon druids and creating them together with alternative level 18th and 20th features.

Thieves Cant, sure. It's a ribbon, so nothing depends on it.

Healing Touch is "mission critical"--it's a foundational part of the class theming. Giving it up would be like giving up Divine Smite.

And making ACFs sub-class specific turns into a ball of mud later--that's what I mean about it being a difficult thing to do later.

BTW, when you give up wildshape, natural spell, and Archdruid, you've given up just about every unique class feature the class has. So how much of a druid do you have left? Just the spell list? I'd rather see one that swaps spell lists first.

[Tanarii]

BTW, when you give up wildshape, natural spell, and Archdruid, you've given up just about every unique class feature the class has. So how much of a druid do you have left? Just the spell list? I'd rather see one that swaps spell lists first.
I've heard folks complain that all Druids come with Wildshape, and seen it in these boards. Some people wish it was a subclass ability like Beastmaster, others just don't want it at all. They want a nature & elemental oriented caster. Personally I think it's a cornerstone ability for thee editions now, as someone put it recently in another thread, all Druids are shapeshifters!

Strangely, despite playing NWN and WoW a fair amount, I used to view D&D Druids as primarily spell casters too. I assumed it it was a 3e/WoW innovation, but is been a feature since AD&D. In my case, it must have been because I played BECMI more than AD&D, and they couldn't shapeshifters at all in BECMI.

[Techcaliber]

Hey guys! Thanks for all the posts, and keep it coming! I love seeing people ideas put out there, and when people like Grod_The_Giant respond with possible options, it’s great! Keep the ideas flowing!:smallbiggrin:

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I would love some more non Vancian stuff to play with. The big ones would probably be an updated Warlord (from 4e) and an Incarnum class (from 3.5, with each variant probably being a sub-class).

Battlemaster Fighters already have a lot of the things I'd like to see from Warlord, but their limited superiority dice make them ill-suited for a full on support role (and the offensive maneuvers are typically viewed as superior anyway). I would love to see a full class that expands on that; if Eldritch Knight is a limited Wizard with much greater martial power, my ideal Warlord would be kind of the inverse of that, with support abilities about three times as good/thorough as those of the Battlemaster and much less martial offensive power to compensate. (Also, really the ability to let allies move around should be at-will, even if nothing else is).

An Incarnum class would also be really cool as an alternative to casters and martials (rather like the Warlock in that respect). Something along the lines of choosing a few of your available soulmelds each day (like preparing spells), but the abilities they grant are at-will (like Warlock invocations). As you level up you start unlocking "chakras" that you can bind a single soulmeld to for additional effects, as well as increasing the number of total binds you can make (here the analogy to other classes breaks down somewhat, but it's kind of like upcasting or using Metamagic on a spell). Give each soulmeld a couple of different chakras it can be bound to for a different but related effect each; this gives the subsystem a lot of modularity and potential variety while keeping the total number of soulmelds relatively low. The end result would be kind of like a Warlock with no spells that can swap out their invocations/cantrips known each morning, and also each morning they get to pick a few of the invocations/cantrips to be stronger than normal.

[MrStabby]

There are a few things I think are missing and other areas where I think there is some space. I look at the thief class and it stands out to me as being pretty unique: a more mundane class but with only a single attack. Correspondingly it has been able to load up on new and exciting abilities. I ended up building a Witch class round this idea (I had so much stuff I wanted to put into the class that I figured I could rip out most of the casting and it would remain balanced. Where the rogue was a single attack dealing damage the witch had a Voodoo doll themed set of abilities to apply different effects and curses and there was some solid ritual casting and divination backup. Whatever form it takes there is some space here.

All in all I ended up homebrewing about 7 classes or archetypes - sometimes for fun, sometimes to feed a specific need. Personally I think this is a fine way to go. It would be fair to say that I felt that some of these filled either a mechanical or a thematic gap.

Then there are all the concepts I wanted to execute but couldn't. Some of these are more system issues rather than class issues. For example I was never particularly happy with my exorcist - I felt I needed to be adept at spells like banishment, have some turn undead but otherwise be more about martial prowess. I like the class based system but a point buy would have let me build this so much more easily (in the end hexblade arcana cleric was the answer but I had the choice of not getting turn undead or not getting banishment till level 9 - and given that these things were kind of my thing, getting them later than other players was kind of sucky.) I wouldn't want to loose the class based system but some alternative class features would be nice.

Having seen some of the suggestions here I am somewhat glad that some spaces remain unexplored. A number of suggestions are for things I don't really want to see at tables I play at: artificers, warlords, minion based classes. I prefer the game without these and am probably happier without official support for my preferred toys and these ideas than I would be if both were supported.



I've heard folks complain that all Druids come with Wildshape, and seen it in these boards. Some people wish it was a subclass ability like Beastmaster, others just don't want it at all. They want a nature & elemental oriented caster. Personally I think it's a cornerstone ability for thee editions now, as someone put it recently in another thread, all Druids are shapeshifters!

Strangely, despite playing NWN and WoW a fair amount, I used to view D&D Druids as primarily spell casters too. I assumed it it was a 3e/WoW innovation, but is been a feature since AD&D. In my case, it must have been because I played BECMI more than AD&D, and they couldn't shapeshifters at all in BECMI.

Yeah, I am one of these. To be fair my complaint is not that druids all get wildshape, but rather that they don't get enough else to feel happy playing one ignoring the ability. The druid isn't bad at a table. I have no grudge there, it is just another class I dont really want to play, which I feel is a shame as the concept is something I love (If favoured soul were druid spells rather than cleric spells, then I might be interested in that).



All in all I think you can build most concepts if you are prepared to start at a high enough level, multiclassing is allowed and as long as you don't mind not being very powerful.