Any Class You’d like to Add?

[Anderlith]

Barring Psion of course since it’s something that of course needs added.

Is there any class that you’d like to see added to the roster? Any niche that you feel needs added to round up all the concepts & options a player could possibly create?

Of course this isn’t about Archetypes/Subclasses, only real classes. I for one would like a transformation based class. Something with a mechanic that allows you to assume a different form (not necessarily a combat form) one could either be a shapeshifter/lycanthrope that had their curse under control or a mad scientist downing vials, or even a Wild Magic afflicted mortal bursting with strange fey magic.

[Kane0]

Warlord. 10char

[Tawmis]

I would like to see the introduction of something like a Shaman...

A class that's a mixture of both Cleric and Druid, similar to how a Ranger is a mix of a Fighter and Druid.

The Shaman would naturally have healing spells, but would also be heavy into Nature, and have some Necromancy like abilities (speaking with Spirits, Summoning Spirits, etc).

I feel like a Shaman fits the more primitive races of the World (such as Gnolls, Orcs, Kobolds, Goblins, etc.) where perhaps a Cleric doesn't fit so much as a Shaman might.

You could even use Shamans for the areas where Northern Barbarians of the Frozen Lands come from rather than Clerics.

[DracoKnight]

While I’m not a fan of 4e as a whole, I adored the Sword Mage. There’s many different ways to gish in 5e, but I would love to see the Sword Mage get updated almost as an Arcane half caster.

[Mikaleus]

id like to see the warden from 4e. Nature’s primal tank warriors.
I’d also be happy with this being incorporated into a more melee centric Druid circle, though I guess it might step on the toes of the moon and spore Druids. I’d make it use wisdom as it’s attack stat like the battlesmith uses intelligence and the hexblade uses charisma

[djreynolds]

Perhaps a fighter archetype who disbelieves in magic.

At higher levels a large resistance to spells and magic... But to magical healing as well. And an aversion to magic items.

At some level they could penetrate the need for magic weapons like a monk... but could never wield a magic weapon.

[Kane0]

Perhaps a fighter archetype who disbelieves in magic.

At higher levels a large resistance to spells and magic... But to magical healing as well. And an aversion to magic items.

At some level they could penetrate the need for magic weapons like a monk... but could never wield a magic weapon.

I’d be interested to hear your reasoning behind that.

[Luccan]

Something like 3.5's Binder would be neat. Specifically, something that is fairly versatile overall, but limited to a set of abilities in a single day. Sort of an Invocation Wizard, where they get to use the abilities they select a lot and in total have quite a few, but only use a few at a time.

[Anonymouswizard]

Something like 3.5's Binder would be neat. Specifically, something that is fairly versatile overall, but limited to a set of abilities in a single day. Sort of an Invocation Wizard, where they get to use the abilities they select a lot and in total have quite a few, but only use a few at a time.

That could work, maybe you could swap out one ability on Short Rests and all of them on Long Rests?

Anyway, a lot of the classes I'd like to see updated would probably work better as subclasses, like the Archivist. In general what I'd like to see is more Ki users, especially a psychic using Ki over a more spell-like system (speaking of which, I should get back to my Psychic class).

[MrStabby]

I would love to see an intelligence based divine class. Some religious scholar or theologian. Someone who has studied the enemies of their church and is well equipped to fight them - maybe tying in some kind of inquisitor tropes as a divine investigator as well as archivist elements.

[Rukelnikov]

Perhaps a fighter archetype who disbelieves in magic.

At higher levels a large resistance to spells and magic... But to magical healing as well. And an aversion to magic items.

At some level they could penetrate the need for magic weapons like a monk... but could never wield a magic weapon.

Sounds like the Forsaker, I'd personally make a barbarian archetype, not a fighter, but w/e

The main problem that kind of archetypes have is that keeping up with magic items is pretty hard, and balancing that is generally very difficult to do properly.

I'd try to do something like "the character loses an attunemet slot with each subclass feature they get"

That way the player can also decide how much magic its willing to "sacrifice" for the associated powers, and also you dont have to balance the subclass against all the MI in the game (and those to come), but only against an attunement slot.

For example a Forsaker Barbarian would have:

lvl 3: 2 Attunement slots (not a problem)
lvl 6: 1 Attunement slots (already or soon to be a problem)
lvl 10: No attunement slots (Magic Resistance could be appropiate here)
lvl 14: Cant willingly accept spells (something huge should be given at this point)

Edit: Looking at it, maybe cant accept spells should be at lvl 3, since 2 attunements wont likely be a prob, and not accepting spells is a character defining thing, so, revised:

lvl 3: Cant willingly accept spells (Magic Resistance could be appropiate here)
lvl 6: 2 Attunement slots (soon to be a problem)
lvl 10: 1 Attunement slots (Very likely a problem)
lvl 14: No Attunement slots (something huge should be given at this point)

The good thing about this, is since weapons dont require attunement, said player can still use magical weaponry, which is one of the coolest parts of playing a weapon user.

[Theodoxus]

I've built the Swordmage and Warden, though I kept a lot of the 4th Ed stuff so it would take a little massaging to get them to pure 5E; but not much. I made the Warlord a Fighter archetype - there really wasn't much unique to the class once you figure out the healing aspect.

I thought about Witcher, given the popularity of the Netflix show - even looked up other people's work, but honestly, I think my Eldritch Knight conversion to short rest casting covers 90% of what a Witcher does, so outside of basically getting EB with Repelling Blast, it's pretty solid.

The only real class I can think of that I'd like, but haven't given any thought until just now, is an Inquisitor ala Pathfinder. Especially after watching Carnival Row... I like MrStabby's idea quite a lot. It's not a rogue, but has roguish elements. It's not a cleric, but has divine inclinations. It's closer to a Paladin of Conquest, but with a wholly different mandate... Yeah, you could hodgepodge one up in 5E, but it really needs it's own mechanics.

[Bosh]

Would like to have casting classes be more distinct.

For a nice new distinct one a shaman/3edish binder that lets itself get posessed by various spirits to give powers while they're inside your body.

You can swap out different spirits and change your powers but only one set at a time.

[Man_Over_Game]

Mechanically, any melee combatant that's complex and is incentivized to change their playstyle every turn.

Conceptually, I think that we are missing a blood magic class.

Every other trope I can think of would fit just fine as a subclass within our existing classes, but blood magic would definitely require its own class, and subclasses, to work appropriately.

[gkathellar]

I’d like to see a proper 4e-style catch-22 defender of some sort. A warden or a swordmage or whatever. A warlord, complete with party buffs and the ability to grant attacks, would also be welcome. More teamwork-oriented options in the style of 4e, basically.

Thematically, seeing the binder or incarnate make a return would be very cool. Those were great subsystems and could be adapted well to 5e.

[blackjack50]

I would like to see the introduction of something like a Shaman...

A class that's a mixture of both Cleric and Druid, similar to how a Ranger is a mix of a Fighter and Druid.

The Shaman would naturally have healing spells, but would also be heavy into Nature, and have some Necromancy like abilities (speaking with Spirits, Summoning Spirits, etc).

I feel like a Shaman fits the more primitive races of the World (such as Gnolls, Orcs, Kobolds, Goblins, etc.) where perhaps a Cleric doesn't fit so much as a Shaman might.

You could even use Shamans for the areas where Northern Barbarians of the Frozen Lands come from rather than Clerics.

I actually really like that.

[Cikomyr]

Something like a Magic/Supernatural hunter. I saw a homebrew Hunter class somewhere, which was some sort of Witcher wanna be, which was cool.

[nickl_2000]

Is really like to see the bard of old editions. Renaming it as a skald would be perfectly fine to me.

Half caster, skilled, battle songs, things like that.

[BloodBrandy]

Well I'd be interested in an actual Summoning class, not just a subclass like Circle of Shepherds, but a class based around the idea of "No, my minions will do it". Maybe have the sub-classes separated by what you specialize in summoning (Fiend, Fey, Celestial, hell, bring in something to summon Modrons, that could fit in Eberron right?).

And an Elementalist would be cool. We have a few subclasses that specialize in some certain element (Dragon Blood sorcerer, Storm Sorcery) but the issue is their class spell lists don't always have enough spells of that element to really take advantage of that element.

And as stupid as it may sound...I'd like a caster class based solely around Cantrips >.>

[DMJosh]

I'd love to see the classes from 3.5 Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic updated, although many have thematically similar 5e updates already, and all of them are probably better off as subclasses anyway.

[djreynolds]

Perhaps a fighter archetype who disbelieves in magic.

At higher levels a large resistance to spells and magic... But to magical healing as well. And an aversion to magic items.

At some level they could penetrate the need for magic weapons like a monk... but could never wield a magic weapon.


I’d be interested to hear your reasoning behind that.

It could be cool, psions come from a source of power

This disbelief in magic could signal a change in the world, or the gods running it.

These archetypes, could be a barbarian, rogue or fighter, may have been trained or derived this power from another source.

Maybe the fighter is actually trained this way to be a bodyguard, specifically a different kind of defense

The rogue could be an assassin type used to kill wizards and clerics

The barbarian could've been a kid on the farm and everyone there was wiped out by magic

[Man_Over_Game]

Perhaps a fighter archetype who disbelieves in magic.

At higher levels a large resistance to spells and magic... But to magical healing as well. And an aversion to magic items.

At some level they could penetrate the need for magic weapons like a monk... but could never wield a magic weapon.

4e had something like that.

They were called Battleminds. They believed in themselves so devoutly, they were clerics in their own image, and any other source of "power" was heretical.

[Magicspook]

I think a shaman class is conpletely redundant, simce everything they could do (summoning/abjuring spirits, speaking with the dead, ally buffs) is already in the cleric class. Just reskin it and you're done.

I think some kind of invocation-based martial class would be awesome. A basic fighter-lite package which can be upgraded and modified from a list of perks which add anything from cool moves to supernatural abilities. It's honestly what the ranger class should have been.

[JumboWheat01]

I would love to see a return of the Warlord. A martial Leader was a fascination of mine, and it was a warrior that made use of mental stats. I would love for it to stand on its own, but I could see it working as either a Fighter subclass or perhaps a Paladin one.

I would like to see the Spirit Shaman make a return, but I could see it be a subclass like how Favored Soul became the Divine Soul Sorcerer. I could see Spirit Shaman working as a Warlock subclass thanks to its thematics.

I also wouldn't say no to something completely new and different, though I don't know how they would pull that off.

[Mikaleus]

I've built the Swordmage and Warden, though I kept a lot of the 4th Ed stuff so it would take a little massaging to get them to pure 5E; but not much. I made the Warlord a Fighter archetype - there really wasn't much unique to the class once you figure out the healing aspect.

I thought about Witcher, given the popularity of the Netflix show - even looked up other people's work, but honestly, I think my Eldritch Knight conversion to short rest casting covers 90% of what a Witcher does, so outside of basically getting EB with Repelling Blast, it's pretty solid.

The only real class I can think of that I'd like, but haven't given any thought until just now, is an Inquisitor ala Pathfinder. Especially after watching Carnival Row... I like MrStabby's idea quite a lot. It's not a rogue, but has roguish elements. It's not a cleric, but has divine inclinations. It's closer to a Paladin of Conquest, but with a wholly different mandate... Yeah, you could hodgepodge one up in 5E, but it really needs it's own mechanics.
I’d be really interested in your 5e Warden !

[Kane0]

I also wouldn't say no to something completely new and different, though I don't know how they would pull that off.

Yeah I think something totally new is due to be honest. Roll together ideas from previous editions if thy must but it would be really nice to see something other than the greatest hits rereleased

[Theodoxus]

I’d be really interested in your 5e Warden !

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJzs59WkL

I cleaned up the base class to make it compliant with 5E for you. I didn't touch their powers though - that would have been more of a chore than I'm willing to do - but outside of attacks targeting defenses, it should work out of the box. For said targeting of defenses, just make them saves instead. Fort would be Constitution, Reflex would be Dexterity and Will would be Wisdom.

[Amechra]

Warlord.


Is really like to see the bard of old editions. Renaming it as a skald would be perfectly fine to me.

Half caster, skilled, battle songs, things like that.


I would love to see a return of the Warlord. A martial Leader was a fascination of mine, and it was a warrior that made use of mental stats. I would love for it to stand on its own, but I could see it working as either a Fighter subclass or perhaps a Paladin one.

OK, so those are two subclasses of the same basic idea (the third-caster and the beatstick, obviously). The core class? Truenamer (duh!) I'm only half kidding.


Every other trope I can think of would fit just fine as a subclass within our existing classes, but blood magic would definitely require its own class, and subclasses, to work appropriately.

I honestly can't see blood magic being more than a subclass. Can you give me three meaningfully distinct concepts for a blood-mage?

[Luccan]

OK, so those are two subclasses of the same basic idea (the third-caster and the beatstick, obviously). The core class? Truenamer (duh!) I'm only half kidding.



I honestly can't see blood magic being more than a subclass. Can you give me three meaningfully distinct concepts for a blood-mage?

To be fair, several of the core classes only had two subclasses to start with.

[rickayelm]

I would love an incarnum class. Another idea is a class based around the planetouched races, so it would let genasi or tieflings develop powers based around their bloodlines.

[Amechra]

To be fair, several of the core classes only had two subclasses to start with.

I blame that more on Clerics and Wizards sucking up the page-count than anything else.

[ImperiousLeader]

Okay, so, these are more wishlist items that I doubt will see play:

1. Summoner/Pokemon Trainer - A class that uses their pets to do their fighting for them.

2. Tome of Battle/Martial Maneuvers based class - Ideally a more anime-esque class that is doing stunts and maneuvers. Whether you call it a Swordsage, or Warblade or something else, it should be a martial combatant that isn't just using basic attacks.

3. A new type of Magic User- Basically, I want a class that uses magic, but doesn't cast spells in the traditional way. Incarnum, for example. And I don't mean the Psion, since I do expect it to be a traditional style spellcaster.

In general, what I'd like is some more experimental classes, with different mechanics. Obviously, they should play well with the already existing classes, but I want variety and experimentation. I've been looking at 13th Age and how different a lot of the classes look and behave. And I want a little of that in 5e.

[Renvir]

I'd like a class that is all about permanent transformations. Moon Druid already gives a pretty solid shapeshifter but I want a class that will slowly change and distort the physical features and capabilities of a person. I'm thinking the changes would be mostly subtle in the early levels while making you nearly unrecognizable in the higher levels. Perhaps a previous edition of D&D has a name for something like this but if there is I'm not familiar with it.

The core class would probably grant smaller boosts in a Warlock Invocation manner. So you'd get a big table with general powers, gating some of the more powerful ones behind class level. Then you'd get archetypes based around different creature types. Ghost/Spirit, Elemental could be four or more if you put your mind to it, Fey, Dragon, Beast, etc.

If nothing else I think I've inspired myself to design something along these lines.

[Dr. Cliché]

Well I'd be interested in an actual Summoning class, not just a subclass like Circle of Shepherds, but a class based around the idea of "No, my minions will do it". Maybe have the sub-classes separated by what you specialize in summoning (Fiend, Fey, Celestial, hell, bring in something to summon Modrons, that could fit in Eberron right?).

I really like Pathfinder's Summoner class but sadly I don't think it would fit into 5e's design ethos at all.

And if you stripped out all the Eidolon mechanics, the range of monsters, the ability to have summons and buffs/AoEs active at the same time etc., in order to squeeze it into 5e, then I think the class would end up a mere shadow of its former self.

But even if you don't use the Pathfinder Summoner as a starting point, I think 5e's core mechanics will kill most attempts at one off the bat.



I'd like a class that is all about permanent transformations. Moon Druid already gives a pretty solid shapeshifter but I want a class that will slowly change and distort the physical features and capabilities of a person. I'm thinking the changes would be mostly subtle in the early levels while making you nearly unrecognizable in the higher levels. Perhaps a previous edition of D&D has a name for something like this but if there is I'm not familiar with it.

The core class would probably grant smaller boosts in a Warlock Invocation manner. So you'd get a big table with general powers, gating some of the more powerful ones behind class level. Then you'd get archetypes based around different creature types. Ghost/Spirit, Elemental could be four or more if you put your mind to it, Fey, Dragon, Beast, etc.

If nothing else I think I've inspired myself to design something along these lines.

I'd love to see a class based around shapeshifting/transformation.

[carrdrivesyou]

I was a huge fan of the Dragon Shaman from 3.5, as well as the Dread Necromancer. They were excellent classes (despite being tiers 4 and 3, respectively) that did their jobs well and always seemed to fit into an adventuring party. I've seen a lot of homebrew workups of these classes and most are pretty good. I feel that both of these would fill some holes in the current base 13 class system.

[Man_Over_Game]

I honestly can't see blood magic being more than a subclass. Can you give me three meaningfully distinct concepts for a blood-mage?

Overall class would be a "Mutant", a person that's been subjected to horrible experiments. Most die early, but a few manage to learn how to control the mutations before it kills them. It'd fit a narrative niche similar to the Warlock, where it's something akin to a converted bad-guy.
Mechanically, they'd probably utilize some kind of Hit Dice concept while also gaining more efficiency the lower their HP is, perhaps when their HP is less than 50%.

Subclasses would include:


Adaptive Mutation: Someone who uses their HP to enhance their attacks and armor, gaining life back on successful weapon attacks. They'd have natural weapons and have synergies with grappling.


Catalyst Mutation: Someone who manipulates the HP in themselves and their allies to provide various buffs and healing.


Phage Mutation: Someone who entices weaknesses in themselves and their enemies, afflicting them with illnesses and diseases, while also manifesting those afflictions as parasitic creatures that kill their hosts.


Elemental Mutation: Someone who manipulates elements by combining it with their life. As they take on the form of an element, they gain its weaknesses, and so the Elementalist shifts to be what's necessary at the time.


Ethereal Mutation: Someone who's possessed by a spirit, able to gain ethereal effects to avoid damage while diving deep into the enemy team to afflict them with terrible effect at close range. You gain power in physical form, at the cost of defense.


Class features would be general, focused around survivability and provide the overall resources that each subclass uses. Subclasses would determine exactly how you would spend your life resources and determine your real contribution to the team. It'd be set up like the Warlock where you pick your subclass at level 1, but divided like the Fighter where your playstyle is determined by your subclass.

[stoutstien]

I would love a class that has a reverse aura of protection. Some form of area debuff centered on the player.( Like a storm herald that doesn't feel so bland)
Could be subclass but I think a
dragon shaman/ tempest/ dirge singer Wis half caster isn't off the mark.

[Damon_Tor]

A "commander" class that collects NPC followers and commands them in battle. Distinct from a summoner due to martial flavor and the use of humanoid "pets". A system for treating a "formation" of creatures as a single creature for the purposes of attack roll simplification would be required.

Race-classes. I've discussed my ideas for a Dragonborn racial class that progresses their breath weapon like warlock spell slots and gains increasingly draconic features.

[Cikomyr]

A "commander" class that collects NPC followers and commands them in battle. Distinct from a summoner due to martial flavor and the use of humanoid "pets". A system for treating a "formation" of creatures as a single creature for the purposes of attack roll simplification would be required.


That's sounds like going against the more simple design philosophy of 5e

[Man_Over_Game]

That's sounds like going against the more simple design philosophy of 5e

Collection of NPCs also goes against a core philosophy of 5e. Rather, the permanent loss of resources does. That's why Wizard spellbooks are easily replaceable and backups can be made, as well as why the Beastmaster UA included the option of reviving your pet.

Put simply, "Will this work in Adventure League?". If the answer is 'No', it probably can't fit within the design scheme of 5e.

[Cikomyr]

I am reading Édition Soleil's latest book of Nains (dwarves), and I realized what sort of class might be missing :

The Runemaster

Melee fighter that enhances itself daily with either 1-shot runes or passives buffs. The buffs (runes) can be changed on a daily basis.

[Man_Over_Game]

I am reading Édition Soleil's latest book of Nains (dwarves), and I realized what sort of class might be missing :

The Runemaster

Melee fighter that enhances itself daily with either 1-shot runes or passives buffs. The buffs (runes) can be changed on a daily basis.

The Forge Cleric is kinda like this.

But if you want something a little more specific to what you're describing, you could look at 4e's Rune Priest. It was basically exactly that, putting runes on badguys and allies to enhance/debuff specific things, while being a melee combatant.

[Cikomyr]

The Forge Cleric is kinda like this.

But if you want something a little more specific to what you're describing, you could look at 4e's Rune Priest. It was basically exactly that, putting runes on badguys and allies to enhance/debuff specific things, while being a melee combatant.

I was thinking more Warlock-like "a few selectable range of cool powers" than merely giving numerical enhancements to your equipment.

Also, no spellcasting. The best you can have is the few 1-shot rune releases, but if you pick these runes you forego the passive bonuses.

[Rowan Wolf]

I thought about Witcher, given the popularity of the Netflix show - even looked up other people's work, but honestly, I think my Eldritch Knight conversion to short rest casting covers 90% of what a Witcher does, so outside of basically getting EB with Repelling Blast, it's pretty solid.


It is third party, but the witcher heavily influenced Mercer's Bloodhunter class though it is unable to have both the potions and magic, but that was perhaps to fit more of the 5e framework.

On summoners I don't think that 5e really handles "summons" and "minions" by design.

[Anderlith]

I am reading Édition Soleil's latest book of Nains (dwarves), and I realized what sort of class might be missing :

The Runemaster

Melee fighter that enhances itself daily with either 1-shot runes or passives buffs. The buffs (runes) can be changed on a daily basis.

We just got a Rune based fighter UA that’s exactly this

[Dienekes]

Warlord has been said. As it should be repeated, continuously, until it gets made.

I’d personally like some kind of non-magic skillmonkey that isn’t tied to being a sneak attack focused rogue. Not certain how I’d do it though.

[Cikomyr]

We just got a Rune based fighter UA that’s exactly this

Thanks. After your comment, I decided to give it a look. Not sure if that's what I am looking for.

Again, I want something that has the feel of a melee warlock.

[Man_Over_Game]

Warlord has been said. As it should be repeated, continuously, until it gets made.

I’d personally like some kind of non-magic skillmonkey that isn’t tied to being a sneak attack focused rogue. Not certain how I’d do it though.

Offer an alternative to Sneak Attack.

Either your Action has to be used for a specific mechanic, or you forgo your use of Sneak Attack this round for some kind of feature.

For example, you could create a Tactician Rogue that does something like:

"When you make an attack against a creature, you can forgo your Sneak Attack bonus on that attack to enable an ally adjacent to your target. That ally gains temporary hitpoints equal to your Sneak Attack bonus that last until the start of your next turn. If your ally makes an attack or Saving Throw while they have these Temporary Hitpoints, they may choose to sacrifice these Temporary Hitpoints to gain a bonus to their roll equal to the number of Temporary Hitpoints sacrificed, up to your number of Sneak Attack dice."

I dunno, just spitballing. But there's ways to work with what you got.

[Aurosman]

A Tome of Battle class that has a subclass for each of the different disciplines would be my vote. Basically a a full maneuver based class that has generic maneuvers and each subclass would have their own special ones to chose from, can even throw in some maneuvers that are spells. Each subclass would play a little different even though they are all the same class.

[JNAProductions]

Warlord has been said. As it should be repeated, continuously, until it gets made.

I’d personally like some kind of non-magic skillmonkey that isn’t tied to being a sneak attack focused rogue. Not certain how I’d do it though.

Did someone say Marshal?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lexhCQQ2yN-9BG8FbvSchfasvzvjWJvMO2B8JUiab5s

(Phone posting, so no url code)

[Anderlith]

Warlord has been said. As it should be repeated, continuously, until it gets made.

I’d personally like some kind of non-magic skillmonkey that isn’t tied to being a sneak attack focused rogue. Not certain how I’d do it though.

It’s not completely non magic, but Factotum for 5e would be cool

[Aidamis]

The classes from the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Maybe not all of them, but the spellcaster who replenishes their mana through sex and carves spells into their own skin sounds like an interesting, if edgy, concept. Just don't forget to add a big forewarning that the GM and players should ideally know come session zero that you're playing one. A youtuber described how they used the class and how much their team mates were freaked out.

[Hail Tempus]

The classes from the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Maybe not all of them, but the spellcaster who replenishes their mana through sex and carves spells into their own skin sounds like an interesting, if edgy, concept. Just don't forget to add a big forewarning that the GM and players should ideally know come session zero that you're playing one. A youtuber described how they used the class and how much their team mates were freaked out.No. Just...no.

WOTC is not going to include a self-harming sex mage into D&D.

[Anderlith]

No. Just...no.

WOTC is not going to include a self-harming sex mage into D&D.

There’s a ton of selfharm in fantasy & in classes that are already in print. Why draw the line at sex?

[Man_Over_Game]

There’s a ton of selfharm in fantasy & in classes that are already in print. Why draw the line at sex?

Because tabletop games are multiplayer.

It's unlikely that such a polarizing topic would be something that the group was expecting or would talk about.

There is higher risk of other players not enjoying the changes the player with the material is adding to the game.

These kinds of mechanics can often involve other players.

These kinds of mechanics often don't share the same goals as other players.


That's what it boils down to. Players of different backgrounds and interests can work together because they share similar goals. When one person's goal is to screw everyone over, the game breaks down. And when someone's goal is to simply screw everyone, the game breaks down.

I don't really care how you work with your eldritch horror of a squid-faced god. Not my god, not my problems, and we're fine as long as your mechanics don't influence me or my goals. But when someone plays "Sex", how often does that stay true?

Even when it's the Bard taking a barmaid to his room, we generally don't want to hear any kinds of details. Hearing about your eldritch god doesn't contribute to my gameplay, but it also doesn't hinder it.

[Anderlith]

I’m not saying I support ERP. I’m not saying it has to be included. I’m saying, why ban it? The guy literally referenced a past product with strong sexual tones, classes & spells. That was its purpose; To be a sourcebook for ERP games.

[CNagy]

A martial version of the Warlock (mechanically)? Like a Sellsword or a Mercenary with picks up abilities the way a Warlock picks Invocations. The subclasses would bias you towards a particular type of role in the party, but your commitment to it would be somewhere between Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster's and the Paladin/Ranger's commitment to magic.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Burn thr current wizard and fighter, both are terribly designed. The wizard gets nothing interesting outside spells, that other classes get access to and the fighter gets nothing that others aren't already gaining access to.

I want to see a wizard that gains class features around the use of Int. Give me a feature that is like Natural Explorer, but uses Arcana! Arcana and other Int vhrcks! Give me features vased around creating my spells, Wizard fluff is completely ignored in favore of making them a blank slate.

Sorcerers may not be as strong, due to limited spells, but the Sorcerer class is better designed. I would love to see the wizard able to prepare metamagics while the sorcerer gains more freedom to on the fly use metamagics. Then you have two classes that are similar, but goes about what they do in complete oposite ways. Kind of like the Barbarian and Rogue, they both deal damage and run around, but no one is going to really mistake the two classes...

Fighter needs to finally die off. It has to jump through hoops to get barely nothing. Almost everything it does get is just something it could already do, a small bonus, or enhances what it can already do. When it gains interesting features it is either too late or limited too much. The Rogue class is a better fighter class (on tge idea that the fighter should be the master of combat). There is more to combat than BIG NUMBERS (which the barbarian is the king of antways). Simple little things is all it takes to make the fighter less of a waste of paper. Honestly, designing the Fighter more like the Rogue or Monk would help a lot, just focus on Str and not Dex and be flexible with the fighter.

3e Binder, Incarnum, and Totemist. Crusader with their weird mechanics would be amazing.

4e Swordmage, 5e's fighter is a pale comparrison.

4e Runepriest. Give me an arcane, divine, and martial version of this class. Honestly, you could make a hole core system out of this idea.

[Hail Tempus]

I’m not saying I support ERP. I’m not saying it has to be included. I’m saying, why ban it? The guy literally referenced a past product with strong sexual tones, classes & spells. That was its purpose; To be a sourcebook for ERP games.
If WOTC releases an official character class, that class can be used in Adventurer’s League. Which means that people will be forcing ERP-based characters on random people at their local gaming store.

Play however you want at your own table. But people shouldn’t expect WOTC to release sourcebooks that include material that would harm D&D’s brand.

[Sception]

In terms of classes I'd want to see, I've got kind of a mechanics first perspective, where the narrative archetype takes a back seat.

1. A support class that operates primarily by granting actions to their allies. The warlord was this in 4e, and I'd be fine with a return of warlord, but I'd be equally happy if it had a magic or psionic flavor, perhaps with the character sending their spirit into their allies to do things.

2. A dedicated pet class, ie one that channels its primary class functions through the pet or pets, something you can't really get from just summon spells & subclasses. Flavor-wise it could be a beast master or a summoner or necromancer or shadow caster or magitech robot builder. Or even all of the above, with one functional pet class chassis and the particular nature and abilities of the pet determined by your subclass.

3. A resource based ability using class with a core mechanic not based on spell slots. I've been playing 5e a while, I want new content that offers a distinct gameplay experience, not just different decals on the same caster chassis with the same daily spell slot mechanic doled out over the same level progression. Something along the lines of 3e's tome of battle or tome of magic or magic of incarnum classes, or even some of the latter day 4e content that broke from that edition's rigid power progression structure. I thought the playtest mystic was moving in an interesting direction, and was quite disheartened that the most recent psionic UA seems to imply the designers are abandoning it entirely in favor of yet more generic spellcasting sub classes.

4. Hexblade as its own class, replacing both the blade pact boon and the hexblade patron (which could probably be reworked into a witchy/cursey themed patron with only a little work - just remove the hex warrior feature & rewrite the bonus spell list). Imo it was a mistake to try to implement a primarily martial concept as a caster subclass. Adding a bit of magic to a martial class via subclass choice works fine, but the reverse just really doesn't work out so well, as multiple exampkes in 5e demonstrate.

Instead, I'd prefer if the warlock's spellcasting were beefed up a bit (not much, just slightly increase the rate of gaining extra pact magic slots and grant additional low level mystic arcana slots as the warlock levels) to emphasize tgem as a proper full caster class, if one with a different primary resource management system than other classes. Maybe in exchange remove the warlocks light armor proficiency and/or lower their hit die. Then I'd introduce hexblade as a 'half caster' class unto itself, related to warlock in the same way paladin is to cleric or ranger to druid. Its subclasses would be the same patrons as warlock, just granting different, more martial features. That way casty locks could be proper casty, while fighty locks could have the appropriate armor proficiencies and hit dice without being locked into a particular subclass or having to burn all their invocations on taxes, but in exchange they'd have reduced casting ability, gaining slower access to new pact magic spell slots and levels, and no mystic arcana at all (including none of the low level mystic arcana slots I'd add to tge casty lock).

I would also give the warlock (and separate hexblade class) a casting stat based on their patron, dependant on how the warlock encounters, communicates with, & draws power from patrons of that type. Fey & Fiendlocks would use charisma, as their patrons are drawn to those with strong personalities (and little common sense), and forging pacts with such creatures involves bartering and or navigating complicated social systems. In contrast, starlocks & deadlocks would use intelligence, as their patrons are contacted through intricate rituals researched from ancient tomes and offer power in the form of dark magical secrets and forbidden arcane lore. Celestialocks might even use wisdom to play up the divine association.

Of course, all this would involve a heavy rewrite to how the warlock works, not just adding new stuff, so it can't really happen in 5e, but it is something I'd like to see from a 5.5 or 6e.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In terms of classes I'd want to see, I've got kind of a mechanics first perspective, where the narrative archetype takes a back seat.

1. A support class that operates primarily by granting actions to their allies. The warlord was this in 4e, and I'd be fine with a return of warlord, but I'd be equally happy if it had a magic or psionic flavor, perhaps with the character sending their spirit into their allies to do things.

2. A dedicated pet class, ie one that channels its primary class functions through the pet or pets, something you can't really get from just summon spells & subclasses. Flavor-wise it could be a beast master or a summoner or necromancer or shadow caster or magitech robot builder. Or even all of the above, with one functional pet class chassis and the particular nature and abilities of the pet determined by your subclass.

3. A resource based ability using class with a core mechanic not based on spell slots. I've been playing 5e a while, I want new content that offers a distinct gameplay experience, not just different decals on the same caster chassis with the same daily spell slot mechanic doled out over the same level progression. Something along the lines of 3e's tome of battle or tome of magic or magic of incarnum classes, or even some of the latter day 4e content that broke from that edition's rigid power progression structure. I thought the playtest mystic was moving in an interesting direction, and was quite disheartened that the most recent psionic UA seems to imply the designers are abandoning it entirely in favor of yet more generic spellcasting sub classes.

4. Hexblade as its own class, replacing both the blade pact boon and the hexblade patron (which could probably be reworked into a witchy/cursey themed patron with only a little work - just remove the hex warrior feature & rewrite the bonus spell list). Imo it was a mistake to try to implement a primarily martial concept as a caster subclass. Adding a bit of magic to a martial class via subclass choice works fine, but the reverse just really doesn't work out so well, as multiple exampkes in 5e demonstrate.

Instead, I'd prefer if the warlock's spellcasting were beefed up a bit (not much, just slightly increase the rate of gaining extra pact magic slots and grant additional low level mystic arcana slots as the warlock levels) to emphasize tgem as a proper full caster class, if one with a different primary resource management system than other classes. Maybe in exchange remove the warlocks light armor proficiency and/or lower their hit die. Then I'd introduce hexblade as a 'half caster' class unto itself, related to warlock in the same way paladin is to cleric or ranger to druid. Its subclasses would be the same patrons as warlock, just granting different, more martial features. That way casty locks could be proper casty, while fighty locks could have the appropriate armor proficiencies and hit dice without being locked into a particular subclass or having to burn all their invocations on taxes, but in exchange they'd have reduced casting ability, gaining slower access to new pact magic spell slots and levels, and no mystic arcana at all (including none of the low level mystic arcana slots I'd add to tge casty lock).

I would also give the warlock (and separate hexblade class) a casting stat based on their patron, dependant on how the warlock encounters, communicates with, & draws power from patrons of that type. Fey & Fiendlocks would use charisma, as their patrons are drawn to those with strong personalities (and little common sense), and forging pacts with such creatures involves bartering and or navigating complicated social systems. In contrast, starlocks & deadlocks would use intelligence, as their patrons are contacted through intricate rituals researched from ancient tomes and offer power in the form of dark magical secrets and forbidden arcane lore. Celestialocks might even use wisdom to play up the divine association.

Of course, all this would involve a heavy rewrite to how the warlock works, not just adding new stuff, so it can't really happen in 5e, but it is something I'd like to see from a 5.5 or 6e.

The one thing I liked about Pathfinder was their summoning class. A dedicated, interesting, and useful pet class.

Yeah, broken, but it had the right idea.

[ZorroGames]

If WOTC releases an official character class, that class can be used in Adventurer’s League. Which means that people will be forcing ERP-based characters on random people at their local gaming store.

Play however you want at your own table. But people shouldn’t expect WOTC to release sourcebooks that include material that would harm D&D’s brand.

This exactly is my concern. To say the just turned 15 player in our current game lacks maturity for that topic is an understatement. Add in the preteens who show up at intervals for games in one shop, well, the manager would turn pale if you suggested that would be around when Mom or Dad brings them in. Plus the parents who play with their preteen/early teens in another shop’s AL games might not want to explain that one aspect right in mid game. Open gaming has some implicit design limits and that exceeds them for AL gaming.

[loki_ragnarock]

The classes from the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Maybe not all of them, but the spellcaster who replenishes their mana through sex and carves spells into their own skin sounds like an interesting, if edgy, concept. Just don't forget to add a big forewarning that the GM and players should ideally know come session zero that you're playing one. A youtuber described how they used the class and how much their team mates were freaked out.

I was reading this thread being totally unconvinced of the merit of most of the submissions and then I came across this.

I'm still unconvinced, but I did laugh.

[GreyBlack]

Duskblade. I want an honest to goodness arcane gish class like the Paladin or Ranger, and this one is lore friendly and awesome. They also have a fairly unique gimmick to build the class around: spell channel (although that was taken by the Eldritch Knight kinda), and would have a really interesting playstyle.

[Dienekes]

Fighter needs to finally die off. It has to jump through hoops to get barely nothing. Almost everything it does get is just something it could already do, a small bonus, or enhances what it can already do. When it gains interesting features it is either too late or limited too much. The Rogue class is a better fighter class (on tge idea that the fighter should be the master of combat). There is more to combat than BIG NUMBERS (which the barbarian is the king of antways). Simple little things is all it takes to make the fighter less of a waste of paper. Honestly, designing the Fighter more like the Rogue or Monk would help a lot, just focus on Str and not Dex and be flexible with the fighter.


Personally, I don't think the concept of the Fighter is completely unsalvagable. There are a lot of martial archetypes that do not fit neatly into Rogue or Barbarian. But I do think the creators went the wrong way with the class, especially the subclasses. We essentially got "generic simple to use fighter," "generic middle of the road complexity fighter," and "token magic fighter" to start with. Which unfortunately means that just about every martial concept has to be able to be covered either with generic simple or generic less simple fighter. Which means the abilities are all very generic.

It would have been more interesting, in my opinion, if we started with subclasses like veteran soldier, knight, brigand, brawler, and so forth there'd be more conceptual room to make the subclasses feel far more unique and fleshed out. Which thankfully, WotC seems to have at least tried to do with the Cavalier, Samurai, and I guess technically the Banneret. Though I still don't think they quite go far enough yet.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Personally, I don't think the concept of the Fighter is completely unsalvagable. There are a lot of martial archetypes that do not fit neatly into Rogue or Barbarian. But I do think the creators went the wrong way with the class, especially the subclasses. We essentially got "generic simple to use fighter," "generic middle of the road complexity fighter," and "token magic fighter" to start with. Which unfortunately means that just about every martial concept has to be able to be covered either with generic simple or generic less simple fighter. Which means the abilities are all very generic.

It would have been more interesting, in my opinion, if we started with subclasses like veteran soldier, knight, brigand, brawler, and so forth there'd be more conceptual room to make the subclasses feel far more unique and fleshed out. Which thankfully, WotC seems to have at least tried to do with the Cavalier, Samurai, and I guess technically the Banneret. Though I still don't think they quite go far enough yet.

A simple generic fighter can be made with more than "I move and stab" as class features.

It wouldn't even take much, a core fighter feature that gave advantage to generic broad range of skills. This is not only a simple feature, it will get people wanting to use said skills.

To do that, the fighter needs to be a bit less generic. Call the feature "Sellsword" as the character is now an adventurer anyways and falls under a Sellsword. But really, you can call it whatever. Give the fighter advantage on Int and Cha checks related to generic areas of the player's choosing (exploration or social).

Have it get better.

Essentially the Ranger's Natural Explorer feature is almost a perfect template. However, NE is way too restrictive.

Make indomitable a short rest feature. Mostly because the Fighter is a short rest class and shouldn't have any long rest features but also because indomitable, as is, is pretty bad as a long rest feature.

[Luccan]

This wouldn't be an issue if rather than Battle Master, all Fighters got Superiority Dice and Maneuvers, but they wanted to make a simple class. Which I don't really blame the designers for, a lot of players want exactly that.

Edit: also, to be clear, I don't consider the more "generic" classes failures in design. If all your classes are to evocative of a very specific type of character, that can limit the types of games you play.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This wouldn't be an issue if rather than Battle Master, all Fighters got Superiority Dice and Maneuvers, but they wanted to make a simple class. Which I don't really blame the designers for, a lot of players want exactly that.

Edit: also, to be clear, I don't consider the more "generic" classes failures in design. If all your classes are to evocative of a very specific type of character, that can limit the types of games you play.

You can have 0 generic type classes in your game and not be limited, because fluff is the easiest thing to change. Change the fluff on a specific class or feature, you still have the mechanics to have a class that isn't janky.

Either everyone needs to be generic, which they aren't, or no one should be. At least to the degree of the fighter (and wizard) because you run into making bad classes.

Edit: I'm not against the idea of a simple fighter, or a generic fighter, but I'm against how WotC did it.

The Rogue is a generic class. Not all rogues are thieves or swashbucklers. However, they gain specific class features that fit within the generic archetype that are effective.

A simple fighter can be done, a non-raging barbarian is a simple fighter, just you need to give that fighter more than just combat options.

There are three parts to the game and the fighter fails two of them, hard, and cones up lacking in the third (damage is easy to come by in 5e).

[MrStabby]

Reading this thread I have a lot of sympathy with WotC.

A lot of the things people want, I don't want to play alongside in my games.

I don't need a sex Wizard. Just... no need.

I don't want summoners. The game is slowed down enough by druids and their bears. I don't need more or the worst parts of the game.

And warlords? No. No way. I will play my character. You can play yours and we keep it that way.



And if this is just me and my reaction then I imagine others would feel the same way about what I want. Trying to keep everyone happy is a nightmare.

[jaappleton]

I'd like to see another short-rest style caster.

From 4th Edition, one class I thought was very unique but didn't get a lot of support (as far as supplemental books to flesh it out more and expand its powers) was the Rune Priest.

For the unfamiliar: Every ability you got had two options; one offensive and one defensive.

I'd like to see it as a short rest style caster, Wisdom based, two attacks, with Runes (done similar to Invocations) where you can pick from an offensive or defensive option on the fly, as the situation called for it. They've started introducing features like this fairly recently in 5E, like the Twilight Domain and Heroism Oath, where you can pick from A or B when the effect is triggered.

I think it'd work very well.

[MrStabby]

I'd like to see another short-rest style caster.

From 4th Edition, one class I thought was very unique but didn't get a lot of support (as far as supplemental books to flesh it out more and expand its powers) was the Rune Priest.

For the unfamiliar: Every ability you got had two options; one offensive and one defensive.

I'd like to see it as a short rest style caster, Wisdom based, two attacks, with Runes (done similar to Invocations) where you can pick from an offensive or defensive option on the fly, as the situation called for it. They've started introducing features like this fairly recently in 5E, like the Twilight Domain and Heroism Oath, where you can pick from A or B when the effect is triggered.

I think it'd work very well.

I wouldn't mind seeing a short rest half caster. Either as half speed progression for pact magic or as half casting on a short rest cool down. Half casting on a short rest cool down would give you loads of spells, not so many powerful but keep you casting them all through the day.

[jaappleton]

I wouldn't mind seeing a short rest half caster. Either as half speed progression for pact magic or as half casting on a short rest cool down. Half casting on a short rest cool down would give you loads of spells, not so many powerful but keep you casting them all through the day.

Agreed. I think there's a tons of potential for it, opens up loads of MC possibilities, and is unique enough that it doesn't step on the toes of an existing class.

EDIT: I also truly believe there's a dynamic that exists when determining if a party should rest. "We need a short rest, Monk needs to recover." "Monk will be fine, we can't afford to rest here!" But when the long-resters need a break, people are more willing to agree to it. I do think there's a slight bias again short rest dependent classes. Adding another would help even things out just a little bit, now there's another option, maybe this one appeals to a player at the table. Now 2 of the 5 players are short rest dependent, now they're willing to take the break they weren't before.

[Anderlith]

snip


snip


snip

I’m not sure why I’m defending this other than general freedom of expression, but WotC could theoretically release a bunch of content & then say, This material isn’t appropriate for Adventure League. They needn’t cater to the widest audience exclusively.

Some people want to play a Blue Mage as seen in this thread. Personally I would never allow it at my table, for the same reason I blanket ban Tabaxi & soft ban Tieflings. But D&D has had Blood Mages, Cancer Mages, & rules for troll sex diseases. It’s not uncalled for for some of the fan base to want simple updates to their weirder stuff. And again, if they want it sanitized for the general geek culture consumerism satellite stuff that’s popped up recently like CritRole they can just put a sticker label on it saying that none of it can be used in Adventure League.

Secondly,
What do you guys think of a social martial with three subclasses that replicate Dragon Shaman, Warlord & Marshal?

[Dienekes]

And warlords? No. No way. I will play my character. You can play yours and we keep it that way.

Eh, taking agency away from a player is a fairly inelegant way to create a leader class. Much easier to allow them to play their character more effectively, or providing benefits they can either choose to use or ignored.

Granting additional attacks is a staple. Few fighters, rogues, or barbarians will find getting to do more of their thing as not playing their character. Or setting up plays, marking enemies so allies deal more damage if they attack them is pretty fair, and allows the player to still choose whether to take advantage of this boost, or to do something else.

That said, I do agree with you that balancing players desires is a near impossible task. I know as a GM I feel like pulling my hair out when a character has more than like 1 summon ability.

[Anderlith]

snip

I think most classes should have both short rest abilities & long rest abilities. In example; Arcane Recovery

[jaappleton]

I personally love the idea of a Warlock in 5E. Why yes, Rogue, would you like to attack again and get to roll your sneak attack damage? Paladin, want to Smite another time this round?

As players, we love rolling dice and seeing all the damage add up. What's not to love? As the Warlord you make everyone at the table giddy by giving them free attacks. Who doesn't want that option?

[stoutstien]

While a little MaD, you can make a warlord in 5e using order domain, glamour bard, and mastermind rogue.

[Amechra]

I'd personally love to see a Bard that focuses on playing around with Inspiration dice. I find it really annoying that all of the good buffs are subclass-specific. Stuff like the College of Eloquence's Infectious Inspiration or the College of Valor's Combat Inspiration should be core features. Heck, dump it down to a half-caster to compensate, or dump spellcasting into a subclass.

---

Alternatively, I'd like to see more classes do the Bard thing where their resources gradually transition from recharging on a long rest to recharging on a short rest. It could be an interesting way to handle Shadowcasters if you wanted to port them forward...

[MrStabby]

Eh, taking agency away from a player is a fairly inelegant way to create a leader class. Much easier to allow them to play their character more effectively, or providing benefits they can either choose to use or ignored.

Granting additional attacks is a staple. Few fighters, rogues, or barbarians will find getting to do more of their thing as not playing their character. Or setting up plays, marking enemies so allies deal more damage if they attack them is pretty fair, and allows the player to still choose whether to take advantage of this boost, or to do something else.

That said, I do agree with you that balancing players desires is a near impossible task. I know as a GM I feel like pulling my hair out when a character has more than like 1 summon ability.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to say my tastes were in any way more valid than anyone else's, just a comment that some changes that would make the game more enjoyable for some would make it less fun for me. That said, I don't have a problem with a player playing a sex wizard, just that I have an issue with it existing as a class.

With regards to a warlord, I find buffing to be a bit of a balance issue sometimes as it removes the tradeoffs. For example you get a couple of front line warriors; one choses to forgo offence and use a shield instead of a two handed weapon whilst the other uses a greatsword. Then the former gets buffed with elemental weapon to enhance their damage. Now one is better than the other in both attack and defence and the distinction is undermined. With concentration rules it makes it a bit harder to put the most powerful buffs on multiple people and can lead to buffed combatants outshining unbuffed ones a lot of the time. Buffing is a way to makes some players feel less awesome than others. This all said, it is a pretty minor gripe and not the most pressing issue in the edition.

[Corran]

As the Warlord you make everyone at the table giddy by giving them free attacks. Who doesn't want that option?
Me! :p
I always preferred having the person playing the warlord roll the allied pc's attack. This way the warlord's contribution to the fight is harder to ignore.

On another note, while I do love the concept of a warlord class, I found what 4e did with it (mainly have it be the group's dpr's best friend) to be very dull. Granted, it's hard to present the warlord as a class that is a tactical genius (int warlord), since dnd is not really a game about armies and sieges and such stuff. And it's also hard to present the warlord as the inspiring combat leader (cha warlord), as there is not a concrete morale system, and as there are already a number of features spread around various classes (fighter, paladin, bard, barbarian) that overlap here. Meaning, that 5e already has a few mechanics that could be used to make a warlord class/subclass, but the fact that these mechanics already exist and are spread over various existing classes, makes having a warlord trickier. Otherwise I think we would already have one.

Giving an ally an attack (as the warlord) is nice and all, but IMO it is too little, thematically, to base the warlord around it. It could be a cantrip that warlords get, or a short rest power they get, like bards with inspiration and clerics with CD's. Not enough to justify a new class on its own, or big enough to fit the warlord's theme in it.

[Sception]

I don't want summoners. The game is slowed down enough by druids and their bears. I don't need more or the worst parts of the game.

This is exactly why I *do* want summoners - or beastmasters or dread necromancers or magitechnicians or shamen or whatever other fluff you want to paint onto a pet class chassis. The reason the extant pet implementation in 5e, whether through spells or subclass features, is so obnoxious is that it's stapled onto what is otherwise a whole character independant of the pet(s), multiplying one players turn potentially several times over and painfully slowing down the game for everyone else.

A dedicated pet class *wouldn't be that*. The character and pet's turn would be the same turn, their actions single conjoined actions. There'd be some additional complication in positioning if playing with minis on a grid, but it wouldn't have to be anything like as hasslesome as the mounted combat, animate dead, or summon monster rules 5e already has, because if you're designing a pet *class* and not stapling pet abilities onto a normal class, then everything the character does can be written to operate through the pet to begin with.

The ideal example here is not pathfinder's summoner, but rather 4e's shaman, with "spells" that were either channeled through the pet or came with rider effects that emanated from the pet, so both the character and the pet were acting all the time, but they were doing so in single joint actions that didn't take any more time than any other player's turn.

[MrStabby]

This is exactly why I *do* want summoners - or beastmasters or dread necromancers or magitechnicians or shamen or whatever other fluff you want to paint onto a pet class chassis. The reason the extant pet implementation in 5e, whether through spells or subclass features, is so obnoxious is that it's stapled onto what is otherwise a whole character independant of the pet(s), multiplying one players turn potentially several times over and painfully slowing down the game for everyone else.

A dedicated pet class *wouldn't be that*. The character and pet's turn would be the same turn, their actions single conjoined actions. There'd be some additional complication in positioning if playing with minis on a grid, but it wouldn't have to be anything like as hasslesome as the mounted combat, animate dead, or summon monster rules 5e already has, because if you're designing a pet *class* and not stapling pet abilities onto a normal class, then everything the character does can be written to operate through the pet to begin with.

The ideal example here is not pathfinder's summoner, but rather 4e's shaman, with "spells" that were either channeled through the pet or came with rider effects that emanated from the pet, so both the character and the pet were acting all the time, but they were doing so in single joint actions that didn't take any more time than any other player's turn.

Sounds like your idealised summoning spell is spiritual weapon?

If there were to be a class like this, I wouldn't object - 12 different types of weapon it can summon with different powers and abilities.

[jaappleton]

I don't want a summoner but I am in favor of something... Something else?

Maybe this would be more of a Druid subclass.

But a class that takes on new forms. A shifter class. But unlike a Moon Druid, its the same form each time, just getting more and more powerful.

Start off as a wolf, and then a dire wolf, etc. Getting more and more benefits as you level.

Maybe picking different benefits as you level, like the Totem Barbarian.

[Kane0]

Secondly,
What do you guys think of a social martial with three subclasses that replicate Dragon Shaman, Warlord & Marshal?

You SOB, I’m in.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Reading this thread I have a lot of sympathy with WotC.

A lot of the things people want, I don't want to play alongside in my games.

I don't need a sex Wizard. Just... no need.

I don't want summoners. The game is slowed down enough by druids and their bears. I don't need more or the worst parts of the game.

And warlords? No. No way. I will play my character. You can play yours and we keep it that way.

And if this is just me and my reaction then I imagine others would feel the same way about what I want. Trying to keep everyone happy is a nightmare.

Warlords don't play your character, they let you play your character more. You can always refuse to follow orders and the warlord can do other thing.

Edit: Not much diffetent than a wizard casting haste on you or a cleric giving you bless. Support shouldn't be limited to magic.


Also, yeah, sex wizards... No thanks. 110% cringetastic right there.

Edit: Side note, 4e hybrid class option was amazing. Mix that Warlord with a Sorcerer and you had a legit Red Mage (especially 8 Bit Theater Red Mage).





I'd like to see another short-rest style caster.

From 4th Edition, one class I thought was very unique but didn't get a lot of support (as far as supplemental books to flesh it out more and expand its powers) was the Rune Priest.

For the unfamiliar: Every ability you got had two options; one offensive and one defensive.

I'd like to see it as a short rest style caster, Wisdom based, two attacks, with Runes (done similar to Invocations) where you can pick from an offensive or defensive option on the fly, as the situation called for it. They've started introducing features like this fairly recently in 5E, like the Twilight Domain and Heroism Oath, where you can pick from A or B when the effect is triggered.

I think it'd work very well.

Runepriest is amazing and I was hoping the 5e Cleric would take notes from it... Sadly they didn't.

[Renvir]

This is exactly why I *do* want summoners - or beastmasters or dread necromancers or magitechnicians or shamen or whatever other fluff you want to paint onto a pet class chassis. The reason the extant pet implementation in 5e, whether through spells or subclass features, is so obnoxious is that it's stapled onto what is otherwise a whole character independant of the pet(s), multiplying one players turn potentially several times over and painfully slowing down the game for everyone else.

A dedicated pet class *wouldn't be that*. The character and pet's turn would be the same turn, their actions single conjoined actions. There'd be some additional complication in positioning if playing with minis on a grid, but it wouldn't have to be anything like as hasslesome as the mounted combat, animate dead, or summon monster rules 5e already has, because if you're designing a pet *class* and not stapling pet abilities onto a normal class, then everything the character does can be written to operate through the pet to begin with.

The ideal example here is not pathfinder's summoner, but rather 4e's shaman, with "spells" that were either channeled through the pet or came with rider effects that emanated from the pet, so both the character and the pet were acting all the time, but they were doing so in single joint actions that didn't take any more time than any other player's turn.

I'd also add that pets should either be a single creature or a swarm. The whole choose between 1 CR 2 monster, 2 CR 1 monsters, 4 CR 1/2 monsters, etc. is not enjoyable to run at the table. But having a single creature or swarm means you only ever add 1 thing to the board.

[Aett_Thorn]

I'm going to add on to those calling for Warlords and Shamans. However, I'd like to also add that I'd like however they implement these to be based on combining ability scores that we don't often see in some of the other classes that we have.

What I mean by this:

For Warlord, I'd love to see the base class be focused on Str or Dex, and then the subclasses be focused on pairing these with either Int, Wis, or Cha depending on the subclass. The Cha subclass would be the traditional battlefield leader with action-based party buffs and "war cry"-like effects. The Int subclass might gain prof in Nature, Arcana, or Religion, and do ability-based debuffs to enemies (or buff the party by giving them knowledge of the enemies). The Wis-based subclass would be a more passive, aura-based subclass focused on serenity in battle.

For the Shaman, I'd love to see a Cha-based Divine caster, pairing it with something like being able to use Wisdom for Concentration checks. I feel like needing to either persuade, intimidate, or deceive the spirits into doing your bidding seems appropriate, with some Wis-based party buffs to go along with it would make it feel different from Clerics, Druids, or Sorcerers as they are implemented in 5e. They'd be fairly fragile, but would rely on their spirit allies to protect them.

[Derpldorf]

I'd love some officially recognized rules for common non adventuring roles, like for example a Merchant trying to set up a shop or an Innkeeper trying to handle a group of rowdy adventurers.

[Kane0]

Does Acq Inc have any of that?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'd love some officially recognized rules for common non adventuring roles, like for example a Merchant trying to set up a shop or an Innkeeper trying to handle a group of rowdy adventurers.

Anyone who says 5e isn't a combat game seems to forget that the rules for non-combat are just not there. The Ranger can make a lot of rolls for non-combat stuff, but it doesn't tell the players what to exoect from said rolls.

Saying "make it up" isn't rules.

[Anderlith]

So to add to my idea of a Social Warrior with Warlord, Dragon Shaman, & Marshal...

I feel like the base class should do buffs with inspiration & such a lot like the Bard. I don’t think they should grant extra actions, unless maybe it’s a reflavored giftable second wind that’s only useable once or twice. 5e does a lot to regulate action economy & I don’t want that to be messed with.

So the chassis should be the meat & potatoes of being a leader. This will leave the subclasses free to do special stuff without needing to cover a lot of the same ground. From there the subclasses would be something like...

Warlord- Gain Battlemaster Maneuvers, this creates the classic warlord ideal & lets people use maneuvers on a martial class that isn’t just the Fighter.

Dragon Shaman- Gains Auras, these auras would be large blanket auras that gift steady buffs & abilities, I’d like for them to be non magical or pseudomagical at best. It would take the flavor of the Dragon shaman but should probably be renamed.

Marshal- Not really sure, I never played them much. It may be that the class should be called Marshal & only given two subclasses or perhaps another style of subclass

[Kane0]

I reckon start a homebrew thread and everyone can help you workshop it?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So to add to my idea of a Social Warrior with Warlord, Dragon Shaman, & Marshal...

I feel like the base class should do buffs with inspiration & such a lot like the Bard. I don’t think they should grant extra actions, unless maybe it’s a reflavored giftable second wind that’s only useable once or twice. 5e does a lot to regulate action economy & I don’t want that to be messed with.

So the chassis should be the meat & potatoes of being a leader. This will leave the subclasses free to do special stuff without needing to cover a lot of the same ground. From there the subclasses would be something like...

Warlord- Gain Battlemaster Maneuvers, this creates the classic warlord ideal & lets people use maneuvers on a martial class that isn’t just the Fighter.

Dragon Shaman- Gains Auras, these auras would be large blanket auras that gift steady buffs & abilities, I’d like for them to be non magical or pseudomagical at best. It would take the flavor of the Dragon shaman but should probably be renamed.

Marshal- Not really sure, I never played them much. It may be that the class should be called Marshal & only given two subclasses or perhaps another style of subclass

Funny enough, I would play a martial bard. I've often thought about getting rid of their full-spellcasting and making it the basis of a fighter. Change around some features to work with the idea of a commander in mind...

Countercharm isn't magical words, but a drill instructor yelling at you to get over your wussy feelings and get moving.

Dangit... Now I'm gonna have to do this.

[Dienekes]

So to add to my idea of a Social Warrior with Warlord, Dragon Shaman, & Marshal...

I feel like the base class should do buffs with inspiration & such a lot like the Bard. I don’t think they should grant extra actions, unless maybe it’s a reflavored giftable second wind that’s only useable once or twice. 5e does a lot to regulate action economy & I don’t want that to be messed with.

So the chassis should be the meat & potatoes of being a leader. This will leave the subclasses free to do special stuff without needing to cover a lot of the same ground. From there the subclasses would be something like...

Warlord- Gain Battlemaster Maneuvers, this creates the classic warlord ideal & lets people use maneuvers on a martial class that isn’t just the Fighter.

Dragon Shaman- Gains Auras, these auras would be large blanket auras that gift steady buffs & abilities, I’d like for them to be non magical or pseudomagical at best. It would take the flavor of the Dragon shaman but should probably be renamed.

Marshal- Not really sure, I never played them much. It may be that the class should be called Marshal & only given two subclasses or perhaps another style of subclass

So, the old Marshal sounds a bit like what you’re describing as a Dragon Shaman. Non-magical with a lot of passive auras occasionally able to grant allies a move action. Personally, found it a little dull because the auras were all just kinda low static bonuses.

Were I to make a suggestion. If you wanted to do this, I’d make Marshal your non-magic aura subclass. Just giving Warlord Battlemaster maneuvers kinda sounds like he’d just be a worse Battlemaster unless he was given new maneuvers that emphasize the commanding nature. I’d like to see a Commander subclass as well that does focus on granting their allies actions largely because that was largely what the 4e Warlord was about. Then if you wanted to do Dragon Shaman go all out on the magic chicanery. Every other martial class has their one (or more) magic subclass let that be it.

Or completely ignore me and do your thing. It’s your home brew. I’d definitely check it out regardless.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So to add to my idea of a Social Warrior with Warlord, Dragon Shaman, & Marshal...

I feel like the base class should do buffs with inspiration & such a lot like the Bard. I don’t think they should grant extra actions, unless maybe it’s a reflavored giftable second wind that’s only useable once or twice. 5e does a lot to regulate action economy & I don’t want that to be messed with.

So the chassis should be the meat & potatoes of being a leader. This will leave the subclasses free to do special stuff without needing to cover a lot of the same ground. From there the subclasses would be something like...

Warlord- Gain Battlemaster Maneuvers, this creates the classic warlord ideal & lets people use maneuvers on a martial class that isn’t just the Fighter.

Dragon Shaman- Gains Auras, these auras would be large blanket auras that gift steady buffs & abilities, I’d like for them to be non magical or pseudomagical at best. It would take the flavor of the Dragon shaman but should probably be renamed.

Marshal- Not really sure, I never played them much. It may be that the class should be called Marshal & only given two subclasses or perhaps another style of subclass

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?605513-The-Commander-(Bard-x-Fighter-Hybrid)&p=24329775

A simple-ish warlord/marshal type class to replace the fighter (and bard) that is about on par with barbarians and rogues with options now.

Just threw it together real fast, but with some subclass support you can open it up a lot more.

[Asensur]

Mystic, Warlord and Blood Hunter are my picks.

Other pending classes from older editions can be added as subclasses.

[gkathellar]

So to add to my idea of a Social Warrior with Warlord, Dragon Shaman, & Marshal...

I feel like the base class should do buffs with inspiration & such a lot like the Bard. I don’t think they should grant extra actions, unless maybe it’s a reflavored giftable second wind that’s only useable once or twice. 5e does a lot to regulate action economy & I don’t want that to be messed with.

So the chassis should be the meat & potatoes of being a leader. This will leave the subclasses free to do special stuff without needing to cover a lot of the same ground. From there the subclasses would be something like...

Warlord- Gain Battlemaster Maneuvers, this creates the classic warlord ideal & lets people use maneuvers on a martial class that isn’t just the Fighter.

Dragon Shaman- Gains Auras, these auras would be large blanket auras that gift steady buffs & abilities, I’d like for them to be non magical or pseudomagical at best. It would take the flavor of the Dragon shaman but should probably be renamed.

Marshal- Not really sure, I never played them much. It may be that the class should be called Marshal & only given two subclasses or perhaps another style of subclass

Warlord should be more about letting allies do stuff - make additional attacks, move, make saves, etc. A mix of that and coordination bonuses (“enemy takes extra damage if we both hit them”) would feel pretty authentically like the 4e warlord. More than anything, the warlord should be the DPR’s best friend. Hence why I think it deserves its own class - that’s a lot of things for a subclass to cover!

Dragon Shaman I think you have a handle on.

Marshal was indeed always kind of an insubstantial class and doesn’t really deserve attention.

[eternalshades]

I'd love the following classes restructured to be either tweaked or outright added to be viable in 5e

2e - 5e has been good about bringing back some of my favorites. The artificer fills in nicely for the gnome professor, and the blade kit is already covered by the path of swords. I'd love a monk path that does the jongler though (assuming there isn't already).

3e - the psychic classes released in some fashion, the jester, and shair from the dragon compendium (although you could argue that those are from 2e), the book of nine swords classes, the magic of incarum (this one is more of an intellectual excersize).

4e
Ranger (less hodgepodge of random powers, more robin hood men in tights with the patriot arrow)
Swordmage (although a tweak with the warlock might suffice)
Warlord (not going into too many details. Needless to say, it's one of my favorite classes of all time).
Warden (might be able to be emulated now, but always loved the visuals and the way it played).

[Anderlith]

So to make a case for the Warlord subclass as I see it, with the chassis of a let’s say, Marshal class. Lots of bard like support with a fighters proficiencies. The warlord then gets Maneuvers, but these are Teamwork Maneuvers. Teamwork Maneuvers would use Superiority Dice, but the nature of them would be different. Instead of granting extra attacks & actions all the time which would break 5e’s action economy, they instead gift Superiority Dice & bonuses to certain actions others do. So a “Directed Attack” Maneuvers would gift the Barbarian bonuses to hit as well as maybe some extra dice to damage, & allows him to swing for the fences without worrying.

[eternalshades]

So to make a case for the Warlord subclass as I see it, with the chassis of a let’s say, Marshal class. Lots of bard like support with a fighters proficiencies. The warlord then gets Maneuvers, but these are Teamwork Maneuvers. Teamwork Maneuvers would use Superiority Dice, but the nature of them would be different. Instead of granting extra attacks & actions all the time which would break 5e’s action economy, they instead gift Superiority Dice & bonuses to certain actions others do. So a “Directed Attack” Maneuvers would gift the Barbarian bonuses to hit as well as maybe some extra dice to damage, & allows him to swing for the fences without worrying.

That and what you can do is give your actions to somebody else.

You need that pesky thief to get out of the way of the mage's fireball, you use your 30 feet of movement and give it to them while screaming at them like a drill sarge.

You need the same pesky thief to hit again, there goes your warlord's action and they try to shank the target.

plus the idea of teamwork maneuvers really does rock. There goes your move and standard action, but suddenly your party is now a wall shield because they moved into position before their own initiative.

serious potential.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That and what you can do is give your actions to somebody else.

You need that pesky thief to get out of the way of the mage's fireball, you use your 30 feet of movement and give it to them while screaming at them like a drill sarge.

You need the same pesky thief to hit again, there goes your warlord's action and they try to shank the target.

plus the idea of teamwork maneuvers really does rock. There goes your move and standard action, but suddenly your party is now a wall shield because they moved into position before their own initiative.

serious potential.

I don't know if teamwork maneuvers will work in practice, I love the idea but... I feel like it may go the way of 4e's Teamwork feats.

[Anderlith]

Then the Dragon Shaman subclass, (Lets call it DragonHeart, maybe Lionheart, cause a Marshal isn’t very Shamanic, & Dragon Heart kinda sounds like a boisterous inspiring leader)

The Dragon Hearted would have pseudo magical Auras from the same source as a Totem Barbarian or a Bard’s magic, they are manifestations of spirit & will, given power by the Dragon Hearted’s courage & leadership. These would be right from the old Dragon Shaman, self centric moderate to low buffs to things like AC, Attack, Damage & Healing, as well as a Fear & other stuff. Probably needing a Bonus Action to maintain.

Still need an idea for the third subclass

[da newt]

I'd like a Mutant / Hybrid / Changling type class that centers around transforming yourself to have beast attributes / capabilities (this may even scratch the PET centric class itch by allowing the PC to hybrid-ize while eliminating the potential downsides of a bunch of minions).

Spells slot and spell list mechanics that grant stuff like extra limbs, strength, speed, size, flight, that enable BM like maneuvers for a melee focused PC. Sort of like Moon Druid - but create your own customizable humanoid / beast hybrid to fit the situation - much less limiting than beast shape too.

Long limbs, extra octopus arms, bat's echolocation, turtle shell, venomous bite, flea's jump, etc - all temporary modifications that come with their own mechanical bonuses (and vulnerabilities) that could push tactical / strategic decisions based on the opponent / fight specifics. Create rules for stacking, duration, which need concentration, bonus action / reaction / action, etc. (It could re-flavor many existing spells - enlarge, shield = shell, fly, devil's sight, haste, and create new ones too.)

If the beast mods are not enough, you could add in elemental mods too.

Could be long rest recharge, or short rest.

It could also be very handy for MC, also useful for other than combat problem solving, could allow one PC to fill different party rolls / flexibility ...

[Aermas]

Give me some time & I’ll give a run down of some more ideas for the Marshal class