If you can create a new class what would it be? Also a subclass too 4 any class.

[Throne12]

So first I would like a tattooist sudclass for the artificer. Or make it a bard subclass. If you dont like tattoo you can reflover it as a painter or something like that.

As for a new class I'll like a gunslinger/marksman. Have subclasses like cannoner, rifleman, duelist. If we made this class all the people can play a gunslinger but a DM can say sorry but no for the class. Also if this was made into a class we can find a way to balance firearms where they can work with the class but will have a draw back with other classes like the druid and metal armor or spellcasters where armor if not prof.

[Yora]

The one class I've seen frequently but that never made it into D&D, but still makes sense as a class is a courtier. A character who is good with talking and "drinks and knows things". Basically a bard/wizard with no magic.

I think I saw a sword and sorcery setting that had such a class, with courtesan as a second specialization.

[Luccan]

I'd like a dedicated shapeshifter class. One that isn't a spellcaster.

As for subclasses, I think a Mutant Sorcerer would be cool. Mutated by the magic that gave them their power, they get things like extra eyes and other physical things. Partly inspired by the Sonic Hybrid, I'd want there to be options for combat or utility. I'd aim to make it possible to build a Sorcerer gish out of the subclass

[Zevox]

The one I'm still legitimately hoping actually happens at some point: the Psion, of course.

And... hm, Psychic Warrior as a Fighter subclass, I like that a bit more than Soulknife personally, if I have to pick just one.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Some sort of explosives class. Like.. Maybe a class that can augment spells but make them non magical, a sort of rogue artificer combo.
EDIT: THink batman utility belt.

[nickl_2000]

I'd like a dedicated shapeshifter class. One that isn't a spellcaster.

As for subclasses, I think a Mutant Sorcerer would be cool. Mutated by the magic that gave them their power, they get things like extra eyes and other physical things. Partly inspired by the Sonic Hybrid, I'd want there to be options for combat or utility. I'd aim to make it possible to build a Sorcerer gish out of the subclass

I made an attempt to do a shapeshifter class once, there is a solid base there but is has some serious issues still. It's actually not an easy class to make and balance.

[Man_Over_Game]

A lot of the suggestions for specific types of characters/classes are things like "I want THIS, but without THIS", and that naturally excludes people who DO want both. Why remove something from a class if only due to a personal bias that someone else might not share? Designing a class with that philosophy is a mechanical dead-end, since it was built around the concept of exclusion. You're already burning bridges to make your own, and the finished product won't have much room to grow because of it. Consider the Rogue's abilities, and how blatantly terrible they are to multiclass with casters without the Arcane Trickster. It was probably designed with the mentality of "Between a Bard and a Fighter, but doesn't rely on magic", and so now you have a class that's nearly unusable with 60% of the content (due to it not generally working with Strength or Caster builds).

I'd like to see some kind of blood-spending class, call it like "The Heretic" or something. Make it into a transformation subclass, a healer subclass, a summoning subclass, etc.

Blood-spending mechanics is something I'd expect to be something that'd require it's own class to do effectively. I'd probably build it like the Cleric, where each Subclass has the same core mechanics, but the playstyles of each can sway dramatically based on your subclass choices. You could probably tack on a blood-spending mechanic onto the Sorcerer or Barbarian as individual subclasses, but why repeat the mechanics in two different places when you can fit them all together.

[Dienekes]

Warlord. Or if we can’t get warlord for some strange reason, various warlord subclasses for different classes.

Rogue could be your Lazylord that stands back and commands others to attack. Perhaps providing their allies Sneak Attack Damage.
Fighter could be a front line warlord that can give out battle tactics
Barbarian could be a Warchief that inspires others with their brutal actions

Other than that, I kind of want a class I’d just call the Expert or something. I see it as a Rogue without Sneak Attack that primarily interacts with the game through using skills to trick, buff, and debuff everything around them. Have some really weird abilities like tricking enemies to attack each other, distracting them so they get Disadvantage for a round, create a chain reaction of enemies getting tripped. The class should feel like a grab bag of tricks. Not just trying to angle to get Sneak Attack every round.

[Porcupinata]

From a mechanical point of view, most of the classes have abilities that are either always on, at will, or use up some kind of resource (spell slots, ki, channel divinity, etc.) that is recovered over time. Sometimes more than one ability will share the same resource, but generally the abilities of a class are independent of each other.

I'd like to see a class that instead has abilities based on a resource that's not used up but instead is limited in quantity and has to be moved around between different abilities based on the character's changing priorities at different times.

3.5 did this with the Incarnum-based classes. I'm not specifically looking for those particular classes with their attendant flavour, but for a class that uses a similar mechanic to shift emphasis between different abilities.

[Luccan]

A lot of the suggestions for specific types of characters/classes are things like "I want THIS, but without THIS", and that naturally excludes people who DO want both. Why remove something from a class if only due to a personal bias that someone else might not share? Designing a class with that philosophy is a mechanical dead-end, since it was built around the concept of exclusion. You're already burning bridges to make your own, and the finished product won't have much room to grow because of it. Consider the Rogue's abilities, and how blatantly terrible they are to multiclass with casters without the Arcane Trickster. It was probably designed with the mentality of "Between a Bard and a Fighter, but doesn't rely on magic", and so now you have a class that's nearly unusable with 60% of the content (due to it not generally working with Strength builds).

I'd like to see some kind of blood-spending class, call it like "The Heretic" or something. Make it into a transformation subclass, a healer subclass, a summoning subclass, etc.

Blood-spending mechanics is something I'd expect to be something that'd require it's own class to do effectively. I'd probably build it like the Cleric, where each Subclass has the same core mechanics, but the playstyles of each can sway dramatically based on your subclass choices. You could probably tack on a blood-spending mechanic onto the Sorcerer or Barbarian as individual subclasses, but why repeat the mechanics in two different places when you can fit them all together.

Don't know if you're taking about me or not (I haven't reread the thread, so there's only one other post I can think of rn), but just in case: I'm not saying "get rid of the Druid" or "just copy Wildshape and do nothing else with it".

[Man_Over_Game]

Don't know if you're taking about me or not (I haven't reread the thread, so there's only one other post I can think of rn), but just in case: I'm not saying "get rid of the Druid" or "just copy Wildshape and do nothing else with it".

Not really anyone in particular, but it's something that happens a lot. Even in this thread, o the 5 class suggestions, half of those have an exclusivity clause to them.

Take a look at a similar thread, one that focuses strictly on subclasses:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?613883-What-subclasses-are-missing-from-the-game-at-the-moment

Second post in is basically "I want monk, but no superpowers". It's hard to build a discussion or a vision off of that.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a class for anything, but I think there needs to be more to its identity than "It does this, but without spells".

"It doesn't use spells" just isn't enough to justify a class to me, but even in your pitch, it's half the sentence. I think the other half is enough, but the "it's not a caster" doesn't really add anything to the image. Why can't it be a caster, or what do you expect it to do that makes casting not worth mention?

For example, it could have been pitched as "I want a shapeshifter class that focuses on augmenting specific aspects of itself based on what subclass you pick (werewolf, wendigo, possession, etc)." I could get into that.

"Like wildshape but no magic" to me, can come off as "Like Druid, but more boring", which obviously wasn't quite the mark.



Compare that with Dienekes's vision of his Expert. Despite saying how it's not the Rogue, we have a clear idea as to what kind of character he is envisioning and could see how it could act in real play. If it were just "like the Rogue, but not a Rogue", it'd look drab in comparison. I don't think people need so many words to describe it, but it does have to be more than "It's not X", as that doesn't really tell us what it IS yet.

[Kwinza]

Warlord. Or if we can’t get warlord for some strange reason, various warlord subclasses for different classes.

Rogue could be your Lazylord that stands back and commands others to attack. Perhaps providing their allies Sneak Attack Damage.
Fighter could be a front line warlord that can give out battle tactics
Barbarian could be a Warchief that inspires others with their brutal actions

Other than that, I kind of want a class I’d just call the Expert or something. I see it as a Rogue without Sneak Attack that primarily interacts with the game through using skills to trick, buff, and debuff everything around them. Have some really weird abilities like tricking enemies to attack each other, distracting them so they get Disadvantage for a round, create a chain reaction of enemies getting tripped. The class should feel like a grab bag of tricks. Not just trying to angle to get Sneak Attack every round.

Why do people keep asking for the Warlord class? It’s entire class is just the battlemaster fighters commanding strike...
Seriously there’s nowhere near enough extra to add to be worth a full new class.

[Dienekes]

Why do people keep asking for the Warlord class? It’s entire class is just the battlemaster fighters commanding strike...
Seriously there’s nowhere near enough extra to add to be worth a full new class.

Respectfully, that’s like saying “all a fighter does is attack.”

A warlord should be about buffing, debuffing, granting attacks, focus firing, granting movement and more. There is plenty of conceptual space for it to create abilities, and narrative space for fluff. Hell I’ve seen about 4 good homebrew versions of the class each with different mechanics attached to them.

[xroads]

A Beastmaster class. Not an update to the ranger subclass. But an entire class designed around the idea of blending magic & animal handling. Some sample subclasses might be...


Tamer of wings: Specializes in small flying creatures (ex. falcon, owl, bats, etc.)
Tamer of hoofs: Specializes in mounts (ex. horses, elk, dire warthogs, etc.)
Tamer of claws: Specializes in predators (ex. wolves, panthers, bears, etc.)
Tamer of exotics: Specialized in more bizarre creatures (ex. griffons)

[xroads]

The Reluctant Hero class. For characters who have no interest in adventuring but are forced to by fate. Characters like Frodo from "Lord of the Rings" or Nodwick from "Nodwick."

At first level they'd have to choose "The Burden." This would be the plot device, contract, curse, etc. that forces them to seek out adventure.

The class would consist largely of luck and willpower type features designed to help the character survive challenging obstacles, even if just by the skin of their teeth. Features designed to give them the feel of a character completely out of their depths even at level 20, yet they somehow always manage to help save the day.

[nickl_2000]

The Reluctant Hero class. For characters who have no interest in adventuring but are forced to by fate. Characters like Frodo from "Lord of the Rings" or Nodwick from "Nodwick."

At first level they'd have to choose "The Burden." This would be the plot device, contract, curse, etc. that forces them to seek out adventure.

The class would consist largely of luck and willpower type features designed to help the character survive challenging obstacles, even if just by the skin of their teeth.

Is that really a class on it's own? It seems like you could do that pretty effectively between flavor, feats, background, and roleplaying.

[Man_Over_Game]

Is that really a class on it's own? It seems like you could do that pretty effectively between flavor, feats, background, and roleplaying.

I kinda chuckled when I mentally started to build one in my own head, Halfling, Lucky, Rogue Scout...

And then realized I was building one of the examples, Frodo.

[xroads]

Is that really a class on it's own? It seems like you could do that pretty effectively between flavor, feats, background, and roleplaying.

Yes and no. I'm sure a skilled role-player could make it work. But the higher a character goes, the harder it is to believe they are just some humble every man who is out of his depths. Especially when they run around in with magical gear and/or enough spells to level a town.

Arguably the reluctant hero could also wear the same magical gear. But I imagine they would lack many of the proficiencies that would allow them to make good use of that gear. Nor would they have access to powerful magics.

[nickl_2000]

Yes and no. I'm sure a skilled role-player could make it work. But the higher a character goes, the harder it is to believe they are just some humble every man who is out of his depths. Especially when they run around in with magical gear and/or enough spells to level a town.

Arguably the reluctant hero could also wear the same magical gear. But I imagine it would lack many of the proficiencies that would allow them to make good use of that gear. Nor would it have access to powerful magics.

That's fair, I'm not going to say that you are wrong. It is something that could certainly be created and could be a lot of fun if done right.

I will point out that your example Frodo wears Mithril Chain and an Elven Cloak, wields Sting (a magical sword), and eats Lembas bread.

[xroads]

I will point out that your example Frodo wears Mithril Chain and an Elven Cloak, wields Sting (a magical sword), and eats Lembas bread.

True. But if memory serves, didn't he have trouble using them? If memory serves, he was very clumsy wielding Sting at first.

In any case, you could easily be right. And I'll admit I hadn't thought about rogues when I originally thought of the class. I don't often play them so I tend not to think about them.

[MrStabby]

A lot of the suggestions for specific types of characters/classes are things like "I want THIS, but without THIS", and that naturally excludes people who DO want both. Why remove something from a class if only due to a personal bias that someone else might not share? Designing a class with that philosophy is a mechanical dead-end, since it was built around the concept of exclusion. You're already burning bridges to make your own, and the finished product won't have much room to grow because of it. Consider the Rogue's abilities, and how blatantly terrible they are to multiclass with casters without the Arcane Trickster. It was probably designed with the mentality of "Between a Bard and a Fighter, but doesn't rely on magic", and so now you have a class that's nearly unusable with 60% of the content (due to it not generally working with Strength builds).

I'd like to see some kind of blood-spending class, call it like "The Heretic" or something. Make it into a transformation subclass, a healer subclass, a summoning subclass, etc.

Blood-spending mechanics is something I'd expect to be something that'd require it's own class to do effectively. I'd probably build it like the Cleric, where each Subclass has the same core mechanics, but the playstyles of each can sway dramatically based on your subclass choices. You could probably tack on a blood-spending mechanic onto the Sorcerer or Barbarian as individual subclasses, but why repeat the mechanics in two different places when you can fit them all together.

Which would be OK, if these abilities were optional. Take the example of wildshape without casting. The druid gives you both - now if there is an alternative class features that comes out and one feature gets a replacement option is spellcasting... then fine, but it is a pretty massive replacement. If not, then you play your non magical wildshaper... and it is just terrible because you play a moon druid but skip its most powerful feature. Specifying an exclusion is, in my opinion, a fruitful way of specifying where its strengths should be and the contrast you would want to see with other classes.


Personally I would like to see more divine casters, divine in this case pertaining to a god. Arcane has bard, warlock, sorcerer and wizard as classes. Divine has cleric (and arguably warlock) but otherwise is scavenging from other clases with things like divine soul.

I would love something like the Archivist - an Int based full caster that trades the martial prowess of the cleric for doubling down on being a spellcaster. A divine caster with a reason to dive down into catacombs in search of relics and so on.

[iTreeby]

The Reluctant Hero class. For characters who have no interest in adventuring but are forced to by fate. Characters like Frodo from "Lord of the Rings" or Nodwick from "Nodwick."

At first level they'd have to choose "The Burden." This would be the plot device, contract, curse, etc. that forces them to seek out adventure.

The class would consist largely of luck and willpower type features designed to help the character survive challenging obstacles, even if just by the skin of their teeth. Features designed to give them the feel of a character completely out of their depths even at level 20, yet they somehow always manage to help save the day.

A great subclass for this would be The Tourist with ointment of fire and radiance resistance, orb of image capturing, towel of utility, Legendary Locals: 100 places to see before you die and other sudomagical items, your character will be built to hype the dms setting and bumble about photographing things.

[Tvtyrant]

High Mage/sage archetype. Has all of the rituals and then some, the Artificers magic items, and knows every cantrip along with big bonuses to rolls on knowledge etc. No spell slots, next to no magical talent but extremely knowledgeable (and casts double cantrips.)

Also a martial that relies on giving up advantage to do things. Like "if you would make this attack with advantage you may give give up advantage to do X. You make make the attack with disadvantage to do Y." Then add a bunch of martial arts style riders on there.

[heavyfuel]

Martial Initiator class. A martial class that plays more like a Sorcerer than as Fighter, with maneuvers in place of spells, and a list that encompasses 9 levels worth, just like spells.

Probably not even grant it the Extra Attack feature to further avoid it stepping on the BM's toes.

5e won't feel complete to me until we get a martial character that offers play complexity on par with spellcasters, which probably means it'll never feel complete to me.


As for the subclass? A heavy weapon Rogue is something I feel is missing from the game. A guy that still fights dirty even with a big two hander.

[Amnestic]

Any of the Tome of Battle classes (no, battlemaster is not the same even slightly) or Binder, because Binder is a cool concept that isn't really replicated in 5e yet.

[heavyfuel]

any of the tome of battle classes (no, battlemaster is not the same even slightly)

Preach it, brother! Preach it!

Edit: Turns out the forums don't allow for full-caps

[Sorinth]

Warlord. Or if we can’t get warlord for some strange reason, various warlord subclasses for different classes.

Rogue could be your Lazylord that stands back and commands others to attack. Perhaps providing their allies Sneak Attack Damage.
Fighter could be a front line warlord that can give out battle tactics
Barbarian could be a Warchief that inspires others with their brutal actions

I'm not sure a whole class would actually be needed for warlord as a lot of classes already have many of the abilities you'd want. Mastermind Rogue for example is the guy giving out battle tactics. Frankly a Battlemaster/Mastermind multiclass with maybe 1 level of Bard probably covers all your bases.

I wonder if Warlord wouldn't actually be better addressed with a couple feats. Inspiring Leader is an example of a feat that speaks to being a Warlord. If there were a feat similar to Martial Adept that granted Bardic Inspiration you would probably get most of what you wanted. Even your Warchief example could easily be done with a feat, take inspiration from GWM but instead of getting a bonus action attack you buff your allies (Temp hit points, or advantage on the next attack) or a debuff enemies (Enemies are frightnened).

[Magicspook]

A martial class using my favourite feature of this game: invocations. This could be a new ranger, a mutant, or a specialist of sorts.

There is also a niche for a 'magic barbarian'... a caster that can go into a power mode of sorts. Think the avatar state from the last airbender.

[Luccan]

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a class for anything, but I think there needs to be more to its identity than "It does this, but without spells".

"It doesn't use spells" just isn't enough to justify a class to me, but even in your pitch, it's half the sentence. I think the other half is enough, but the "it's not a caster" doesn't really add anything to the image. Why can't it be a caster, or what do you expect it to do that makes casting not worth mention?

For example, it could have been pitched as "I want a shapeshifter class that focuses on augmenting specific aspects of itself based on what subclass you pick (werewolf, wendigo, possession, etc)." I could get into that.

"Like wildshape but no magic" to me, can come off as "Like Druid, but more boring", which obviously wasn't quite the mark.


Fair enough, but I wasn't really expecting the need to build an argument around how the class would work. My subclass idea, I felt, needed more explanation. Particularly since I'm more particular about how I want parts of it to work. But if I need to say more about it: I want a non-casting shapeshifter because right now all mechanics for that concept are pretty closely tied to also being a wizard or druid or I guess warlock (or fairly weak racial abilities). Your character's focus and identity in those cases, even for a Moon Druid, is very closely tied to their spell list. Not using spells at my disposal, in favor of doing the one thing I want do with the class, is not only mechanically inefficient, but fluff-wise is unsound. If I'm playing a spellcaster I should be casting spells other than Polymorph and Alter Self.

I think you provided some good ideas for subclasses.i did think a lycanthropes was basically necessary for such a class, but since I'm not sure exactly how I'd implement it I didn't feel it was necessary to bring up. Especially since I didn't assume anyone would require a better pitch for the basic concept. Shapeshifting is an old trope, with a number of ways it could be implemented, but D&D really just ties it to a few casters who quite often have something equal or better to do with their time. Seems obvious to me there's a hole to be filled.

[Amnestic]

Also as a subclass I'd like to see Dragonfire Adept using the Warlock chassis but with a more expansive revamp (pact replacement, one patron, no eldritch blast but instead a breath-cantrip).

Maybe less 'Subclass' and more 'Variant Class'?

[N810]

How about a subclass that specializes in thrown weapons,
Not sure what main to attach it to though.

Maybe Ranger or fighter ?

[Hael]

I’d love a subclass that mechanically enables crit builds. Say a lvl 3 feature that increases the crit range or damage multiplier of weapons and spells by one, and perhaps tacks on some extra damage as well. Could be say a ranger or sorcerer.

That could instantly make a lot of multiclass builds viable and would enable interesting builds with previously bad classes like the champion

[Dienekes]

I'm not sure a whole class would actually be needed for warlord as a lot of classes already have many of the abilities you'd want. Mastermind Rogue for example is the guy giving out battle tactics. Frankly a Battlemaster/Mastermind multiclass with maybe 1 level of Bard probably covers all your bases.

I wonder if Warlord wouldn't actually be better addressed with a couple feats. Inspiring Leader is an example of a feat that speaks to being a Warlord. If there were a feat similar to Martial Adept that granted Bardic Inspiration you would probably get most of what you wanted. Even your Warchief example could easily be done with a feat, take inspiration from GWM but instead of getting a bonus action attack you buff your allies (Temp hit points, or advantage on the next attack) or a debuff enemies (Enemies are frightnened).

You can hobble together almost anything. I just don't think you can do it particularly well. Hell Battlemaster's Commander's Strike is only mathematically optimal if you use it on a Rogue to give them sneak attack, otherwise you're giving up an attack, a bonus action, and a reaction for one attack. And until you get to level 7 you'll only really be able to do it about once per encounter. Which is actually an investment if we're bouncing between 3 classes and multiple feats and spells just to get a rather neutered rendition of what was once just one class, I think yeah, there's enough there to make a class that actually has mechanics designed around getting it right.

[Sorinth]

You can hobble together almost anything. I just don't think you can do it particularly well. Hell Battlemaster's Commander's Strike is only mathematically optimal if you use it on a Rogue to give them sneak attack, otherwise you're giving up an attack, a bonus action, and a reaction for one attack. And until you get to level 7 you'll only really be able to do it about once per encounter. Which is actually an investment if we're bouncing between 3 classes and multiple feats and spells just to get a rather neutered rendition of what was once just one class, I think yeah, there's enough there to make a class that actually has mechanics designed around getting it right.

Keep in mind it's a class plus two or more subclasses if it is it's own class instead of say a fighter subclass. I'm not saying you can't come up with some cool abilities/mechanics I'm just not sure it will bring anything all that different then what you can currently do. You don't have to MC into 3 classes, any combination of those 3 classes can work, especially if you add a couple feats for those cool mechanics you want to give the class.

And for the record Commander's Strike is also good with Barbarians, Grapplers, Mage Slayer's, and any who is in a better position to take out specific enemies like whoever needs to deal the Orc Shaman who is healing the BBEG Orc Chief.

[DeadMech]

Crusader. 5e needs a ToB. We need complex mechanically interesting martial classes. So far I've hated the direction I've seen every attempt at homebrewing one go. Usually ditching the refresh mechanic.... Newsflash the randomized maneuver's were the fun of the class and were thematically relevant.

[ftafp]

The issue with creating new classes in 5e is that most of the classes DnD has had in the past already fall under one of 5e's existing classes, and can easily be adapted to a subclass. Marshal/Warlord for example could easily be a variant of the battlemaster that has support techniques. Pathfinder's Summoner could just as easily be a warlock if WotC bothered to add invocations that buff your familiar.

Psion is the only niche that's not really filled in 5e. I've been saying from the beginning that a psion class is necessary, and all WotC needs to build it is to create another full caster with the preexisting spell point system instead of spell slots

[heavyfuel]

Crusader. 5e needs a ToB. We need complex mechanically interesting martial classes. So far I've hated the direction I've seen every attempt at homebrewing one go. Usually ditching the refresh mechanic.... Newsflash the randomized maneuver's were the fun of the class and were thematically relevant.

As much as I hope we eventually get something along the lines of ToB, if it ever happens, we're likely not getting 3 full classes like last time. By the time ToB came out, there were over nearly 100 base classes in 3.0 and 3.5

With our current 13 classes, I think the chance we'll get a Crusader is zero.

So most homebrew versions have gone for a Martial Initiator, a single class, scrapping the Crusader's recovery mechanism since it just isn't what most people liked about ToB, even if it was really fun.

[Nagog]

Class? Summoner. I already have one that I've had as a pet project for some time, with subclasses to: Merge with your Summoned Creature; Ride your Summoned Creature; or (a bit harder to describe) essentially have 2 separate characters, the Summoner and the Summoned (more independence, similar to Pact of the Chain familiars but better).

For a subclass? I'd love to see a more tactical Fighter. I made one a while back that I'm playtesting currently, it relies on using your Bonus Action to adopt different stances and styles to gain passive boons and the like and at later levels (level 15) being able to swap stances with each attack you make, so while you don't gain stuff like spells or extra damage or imposing status effects, you can actively switch between the playstyles of Super Tank (Dodge action triggers a Bonus Action attack and providing cover to allies within 5 ft in any direction) Damage Mogul (Crit on 19-20 and AoO when hit with a melee attack), and Skirmisher (Speed bonus of +10 feet, enemies you hit (not Attack, slightly different from Mobile) can't make AoO against you, a second reaction). Overall it's been loads of fun without breaking anything. I think it's worked miracles for the Fighter class, who typically spends their turn just attacking wildly.

[Luccan]

As much as I hope we eventually get something along the lines of ToB, if it ever happens, we're likely not getting 3 full classes like last time. By the time ToB came out, there were over 100 base classes in 3.0 and 3.5

With our current 13 classes, I think the chance we'll get a Crusader is zero.

So most homebrew versions have gone for a Martial Initiator, a single class, scrapping the Crusader's recovery mechanism since it just isn't what most people liked about ToB, even if it was really fun.

What are you counting to get 100 base classes?

[Throne12]

Respectfully, that’s like saying “all a fighter does is attack.”

A warlord should be about buffing, debuffing, granting attacks, focus firing, granting movement and more. There is plenty of conceptual space for it to create abilities, and narrative space for fluff. Hell I’ve seen about 4 good homebrew versions of the class each with different mechanics attached to them.

Why not just add more battle maneuvers. I've never played or seen the warlord. But I've hear a lot of people talk about it and it always sounds like the battle master using maneuvers.

[heavyfuel]

What are you counting to get 100 base classes?

The Retiering the Classes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?568771-Retiering-the-Classes-A-new-home) project that was partially led by me (big thanks to eggynack and Troacctid) tiered 80 classes.

Should've looked at it before posting a number, I thought there were more classes than just 80. So.. Not over 100, but nearly 100 instead. :smallbiggrin:

[Luccan]

The Retiering the Classes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?568771-Retiering-the-Classes-A-new-home) project that was partially led by me (big thanks to eggynack and Troacctid) tiered 80 classes.

Should've looked at it before posting a number, I thought there were more classes than just 80. So.. Not over 100, but nearly 100 instead. :smallbiggrin:

Ah, yes that would be a good way to count them. Good threads, btw, thanks for relaunching them and ensuring the project got finished up.

I always forget there was an official Dragonlance book, with classes, for 3.5. So that's one thing I neglected. Still a bit lower, though; a few of the entries are ACFs and I recall even tiering the Mystic Ranger and its friends as official was contentious.

Edit: actually, that only cuts 5 or 6 classes, so not that much less. Wow, I knew there were a lot, but never bothering to count them before there are way more than I thought. That's not even counting racial or paragon levels

[Dienekes]

Keep in mind it's a class plus two or more subclasses if it is it's own class instead of say a fighter subclass. I'm not saying you can't come up with some cool abilities/mechanics I'm just not sure it will bring anything all that different then what you can currently do. You don't have to MC into 3 classes, any combination of those 3 classes can work, especially if you add a couple feats for those cool mechanics you want to give the class.

And for the record Commander's Strike is also good with Barbarians, Grapplers, Mage Slayer's, and any who is in a better position to take out specific enemies like whoever needs to deal the Orc Shaman who is healing the BBEG Orc Chief.

Mage Slayers generally don't want CS. Their Reaction to smack the mage for casting a spell is one of their best qualities. They don't want to use their Reaction so they can either force the Mage to waste their Action on Disengage, or get the free Reaction attack if the Mage tries to cast a spell. There is the Disadvantage on Concentration saving throws. Which may be worth it, but often I really doubt it.

Barbarians damage per attack from the Fighter is not so different, and hell they can't use Reckless Attack on their Reaction attacks so it's not gong to be much more accurate either or are less accurate depending on your Fighting Style. I don't think Bonus Action and Reaction are worth 2 to 4 bonus damage.

Grappler and niche case. Yeah maybe. I so rarely see a Grappler actually used successfully it may actually be good for them. And of course there is always a strange niche case for some ability to at least work. But that's a far cry away from the type of battlefield control abilities that the Warlord got to use in 4e.


Why not just add more battle maneuvers. I've never played or seen the warlord. But I've hear a lot of people talk about it and it always sounds like the battle master using maneuvers.

Well first WotC would have to you know add more maneuvers. Secondly, maneuvers are pretty strangely gated. Which of course makes sense because they're tied to the Fighter chasis and the Fighter chassis does dealing consistent damage really really good without any benefits. But in practice the result is the BM is expected to spend most of their time doing your basic Attack Action with only using your maneuvers on occasion. On average 1.33 times per encounter from level 3 to 6, 1.67 from 7 to 14, and twice per encounter from 15 to 20. Perhaps I'm being a bit selfish here, but I'd you know, like to act like a warlord every turn or at least more turns than I'm not. Same reason why casters all got cantrips I suppose. So they can always get to feel like a caster.

On the other side of things, after playing BM a few times I've definitely started to find them a bit dull. Still the most interesting non-magical fighter subclass to play over a long campaign. But having gone back to play a warblade in a different campaign and I can't help but compare them, and the battlemaster comes up wanting.

[DeadMech]

As much as I hope we eventually get something along the lines of ToB, if it ever happens, we're likely not getting 3 full classes like last time. By the time ToB came out, there were over nearly 100 base classes in 3.0 and 3.5

With our current 13 classes, I think the chance we'll get a Crusader is zero.

So most homebrew versions have gone for a Martial Initiator, a single class, scrapping the Crusader's recovery mechanism since it just isn't what most people liked about ToB, even if it was really fun.

Starting with martial initiator strikes me at as entirely the wrong way to go about making a baseclass for the ToB Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage. They are entirely different classes at their core. Different HD, different skills, different play styles supported by different abilities. It's like trying to crowbar sorcerer, warlock, and bard into being wizard subclasses just because they are share being arcane casters.

[heavyfuel]

Starting with martial initiator strikes me at as entirely the wrong way to go about making a baseclass for the ToB Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage. They are entirely different classes at their core. Different HD, different skills, different play styles supported by different abilities. It's like trying to crowbar sorcerer, warlock, and bard into being wizard subclasses just because they are share being arcane casters.

I agree, but I also don't think having 3 separate classes is viable or going to happen any time ever.

Any ideas on how to approach the problem?

[heavyfuel]

Also as a subclass I'd like to see Dragonfire Adept using the Warlock chassis but with a more expansive revamp (pact replacement, one patron, no eldritch blast but instead a breath-cantrip).

Maybe less 'Subclass' and more 'Variant Class'?

Actually missed this post before. A "pact of the dragonfire" would be awesome!

Or actually, it's probably better as a patron: "The Inner Dragon" or something

[Amechra]

I've never really liked the idea of having a class just for fighting with guns (to pick an example) - why can't that just be a Fighter or Rogue subclass?

The class I really want is a simplified caster. I absolutely hate the Vancian system at this point because of all of the feature creep and tweaks it has accumulated over the years, and I want a way to play a Great And Powerful Mage without having to reference a massive list of spells or juggle excessive numbers of spell slots/points. Because the spell point variant is kinda garbage too.

Something that blends the Mystic's package-style magic system with Warlock-style casting might be a good mechanical framework (because, let's face it, it's not like I'm going to be able to swing Fulminaturgy in 5e, but I can dream.)

[heavyfuel]

The class I really want is a simplified caster. I absolutely hate the Vancian system at this point because of all of the feature creep and tweaks it has accumulated over the years, and I want a way to play a Great And Powerful Mage without having to reference a massive list of spells or juggle excessive numbers of spell slots/points. Because the spell point variant is kinda garbage too.


Funny you mention that in regards to a system with tuned down Vancian casting in it. No longer do Wizards need to prepare X fireballs and Y flies. Previously vancian casters are now basically all sorcerers who can alter their spells known.

Still, you make a valid point. I miss the Warlock from 3.5 with very restricted at will spells

[Amechra]

Funny you mention that in regards to a system with tuned down Vancian casting in it. No longer do Wizards need to prepare X fireballs and Y flies. Previously vancian casters are now basically all sorcerers who can alter their spells known.

Still, you make a valid point. I miss the Warlock from 3.5 with very restricted at will spells

That's actually the issue, funnily enough - I liked it when you had to pick which spells you could cast ahead of time, because that gave stuff more weight. Part of what makes Vancian casting interesting, in the abstract, is that spells are discrete things that you have to be particular about. There's a world of thematic difference between a Wizard who has forcibly memorized Fireball because they have a mighty enough will, and one who knows Fireball but only has so much make-spells-happen juice to use it with.

You don't have that tension between preparing Magic Missile and Shield, and that kinda sucks.

[MrStabby]

That's actually the issue, funnily enough - I liked it when you had to pick which spells you could cast ahead of time, because that gave stuff more weight. Part of what makes Vancian casting interesting, in the abstract, is that spells are discrete things that you have to be particular about. There's a world of thematic difference between a Wizard who has forcibly memorized Fireball because they have a mighty enough will, and one who knows Fireball but only has so much make-spells-happen juice to use it with.

You don't have that tension between preparing Magic Missile and Shield, and that kinda sucks.

I quite liked that prep. It was something you could do to tweak your character a bit. I think now the oportunity cost for niche spells is too low which makes it easy to step on the toes of other characters. If you wanted to fly, it costing not only a spell known/prepared slot but also effectively a spell slot would help the game out quite a bit I think. Anyway... thats my unpopular view.

[mr_odd]

I would love a dream mage - kind of similar to 3.0's lucid dreaming but actually functional and balanced.

I think it would be cool for a character to be a bridge between the material world and the dream world. Essentially they could manifest elements from the dream world into the material plane, or bring creatures from the material plane into the dream world.

[DeadMech]

I agree, but I also don't think having 3 separate classes is viable or going to happen any time ever.

Any ideas on how to approach the problem?

My priority is a faithful conversion of what I liked. You can not make a faithful conversion without making them their own base classes.

I disagree that it's a problem to make them separate classes. If WotC doesn't want to make money selling books with popular classes for some arbitrary reason then that's their problem.

You could make a baseline initiator class if it was essentially hollow and changed almost entirely at level 1 by the subclasses. But at that point what's even the point of making them subclasses? Because again... the only thing the classes share is "learns maneuvers" and they don't even draw upon the same list of disciplines. Their HD are different, their class skills are different, their saves are different, their equipment proficiency are different. They share almost nothing.

You could make them subclasses for other established classes but they don't actually share any class features with any of the established classes. So they would have to change nearly everything about the class it was attached to and you couldn't play one from level 1.

[ezekielraiden]

My absolute top two class ideas are Warlord and Summoner, the former inspired by the one found in 4e, the latter by the one found in PF.


The issue with creating new classes in 5e is that most of the classes DnD has had in the past already fall under one of 5e's existing classes, and can easily be adapted to a subclass. Marshal/Warlord for example could easily be a variant of the battlemaster that has support techniques. Pathfinder's Summoner could just as easily be a warlock if WotC bothered to add invocations that buff your familiar.
My problem with this argument is exactly the same as the one from the "should the ranger exist" thread. Reductionism for its own sake is not good. Neither is proliferation, but we're already working with an edition that has an anti-proliferation focus. We didn't need an Artificer, it could've been a Wizard subclass. We don't need a Psion, it could be a Sorcerer subclass. Etc.

That said, I do agree with you that there is a consonance between the PF Summoner and the 5e Warlock. Because the (extremely early) efforts I've put into making a 5e Summoner have been to make it the second class that uses the Pact Magic feature. Ironically, I would also use the overall Warlock structure ("split" subclass model, a small set of passive benefits, a refreshable set of active benefits) for creating a Warlord. Patron and Pact become Leadership Style (which defines your leadership modifier, Int, Wis, or Cha, and certain features) and Tactical Focus (which defines the kind of leader you are: do you fight from the front? coordinate the mages? sneak in the shadows? strafe with ranged weapons? etc.) Invocations become Tactics, passive always-on benefits. Instead of spells, Warlords develop Gambit (a resource, e.g. "I have 3 Gambit") to spend on Stratagems, which they can change during a short rest to adjust how they've prepared for facing the current threats. Spontaneously changing your Stratagems is hard--they require practice and coordination with your teammates to work properly, though at higher levels I could see allowing a spontaneous Stratagem at increased Gambit cost. (Most Stratagems would only cost 1 or 2 Gambit I suspect.) I haven't yet thought of what should replace the higher-level spell slots, but I'm sure there's an entirely cromulent non-daily ability or resource that could be implemented in its place.

Of course, the fluff and flavor of the Warlord is that they're (in some sense) an academic of combat. They study it as a Wizard studies the arcane. To view a fight as nothing more than a brutal rush to the finish is like viewing cooking as a race against burning the food: in some sense correct, but a terribly limited and flawed perspective. Warlords in the generic would get things boosting their tactical analysis of enemies, the use of well-timed aid even in non-combat situations, and the ability to "prepare" for events before they happen to boost ally performance or turn ragamuffin conscripts into effective fighting machines. Andrew Jackson's defense of New Orleans with a small band of Choctaw warriors and a (slightly) larger group of ragtag milita members is the sort of thing I'm thinking of.

Much of this is heavily inspired by the Battlemaster from Grim World, a supplement for Dungeon World.


Class? Summoner. I already have one that I've had as a pet project for some time, with subclasses to: Merge with your Summoned Creature; Ride your Summoned Creature; or (a bit harder to describe) essentially have 2 separate characters, the Summoner and the Summoned (more independence, similar to Pact of the Chain familiars but better).
For mine, which is mostly in the concept stage at this point, there are three subclasses. I called the summoned creature a Visitant,* as it is a strange extraplanar being only transiently present in the mortal world, and each of the subclasses is aligned with one of the esoteric constellations, an Astral Sign. A friend of mine cautioned that having lots and lots of things on the field can be a real drag on play, so I tried to avoid going for that. Thus, the three subclasses are the Sign of the Protean, featuring an extremely adaptive Visitant capable of spontaneously (albeit temporarily) manifesting new traits; the Sign of the Amalgam, which (as your first example) merges with their Visitant to make a single more powerful creature; or the Sign of the Banner (not keen on the name but haven't found a better one yet), which is mostly focused on buffing/supporting both summoned and regular allies.

The "other half" of the Warlock-style split subclass, the Planar Bond, defines what kind of creature your Visitant manifests as. You select either Elemental, Umbral, or Celestial nature, and Bipedal, Quadrupedal, or Serpentine form. Note that each of the planar bond types can be fluffed as one likes; an Elemental bond could be to a proper fire elemental, a dragon of lightning aspect, a deeply alien fey associated with snow and ice, or a sapient ooze-creature of popping and fizzing acid. An Umbral bond could be to a living shade from the Plane of Shadow, a Far Realm entity of madness in the dark, a secretive devil-like being, or a figure from the Unseelie Court. A Celestial bond could be to any paragon of good like an angel, but could also be to something more alien like a sentient color outside the visual spectrum or something connected to the plane of positive energy. The exact nature of your Visitant and its native plane are something to be discussed between DM and player, not to be rigidly defined by the text.

Flavor-wise, my 5e Summoner is tied to planar and astral phenomena, observing the esoteric and even Lovecraftian machinations that the stars reveal. One of the high-level general class features I've considered is having (essentially) a personal demiplane--a little "pocket" of the Visitant's home that has been made comfortable for mortals to reside in. In addition to capturing some of the Synthesist etc., it's features like this, which are cool and potentially useful but still relatively ribbon-y, that are why I think a Summoner has a perfectly valid place among 5e's classes.

*What's even better, "Visitant" literally does mean "a supernatural being or agency; an apparition." I was so pleased when I found that particular word. It captures exactly what I wanted it to capture, while if anything being an improvement over "Eidolon."

[Kane0]

First choice: warlord (or something like) and binder/incarnum subclass.

2nd choice: mystic with accompanying subclass.

[FaerieGodfather]

I'd like a dedicated shapeshifter class. One that isn't a spellcaster.

Yes, this. Something like the Ultimate Wilderness Shifter, but for 5e, and good; subclasses to include Adaptive, Weretouched, Draconc, and (please?) Protean Mutant. Also, shapeshifting subclasses for Fighter, Rogue, and Barbarian. Especially Barbarian.


Not really anyone in particular, but it's something that happens a lot. Even in this thread, o the 5 class suggestions, half of those have an exclusivity clause to them.

Second post in is basically "I want monk, but no superpowers". It's hard to build a discussion or a vision off of that.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a class for anything, but I think there needs to be more to its identity than "It does this, but without spells".

What you're looking for is, "what does this class do instead of casting spells?" Especially in combat, because most of these ideas seem to have a pretty solid grasp of what their character does when their weapons are sheathed. The problem is that these pitches say "like this, but without spells" when the spells are 90% of what this does.

---

For my own entry? I want an INT-based spontaneous arcane spellcaster that casts all the healing spells, all the enchantment spells, and all of the Wizard and Druid spells that specifically and only affect living beings. (Preferably also the teleportation spells from those lists.) Model it on the 3.5 Fleshwarper and Mindbender Prestige Classes.

I'll probably build this for myself in PF1, sooner or later.

I'd like to see the Dragon Shaman and Dragonfire Adept make a return as a separate class from the Sorcerer-- merged into one class, less magical, but more gishy/more support/more melee.

Another +1 for psionic/psychic classes. I understand why DSP doesn't want to try until WotC gives up.