What subclasses don't yet exist, that you want to exist?

[jaappleton]

We all know and understand that sometimes, what you want to pull off just doesn't exist in the game.

The design team has done a great job with certain subclasses, keeping them open but also concise in theme and abilities, allowing them to cover quite a lot of ground. I see the Paladin as an excellent example of this.

Others, I think there's some obvious ones where its more narrow in scope, and because of that, there's a ton of room for new options. Earth Domain Cleric is something I think should be added, for example.

And while you could achieve close to it by multiclassing, what if you'd rather stay single class?

Personally, I think the Monk in particular has a ton of untapped potential. Some of us might remember the idea of the Theurge, a mix of Cleric and Wizard. When they tried it for 5E, it was pretty poorly implemented. But what if you mixed Monk and Cleric? Get access to the Domain spells for a certain Ki cost, change your unarmed strike damage type to an associated damage type of your Domain (Forge gets Fire, for example), etc.

Or a blend of Monk and Paladin, spending Ki to deliver a Smite style ability.

[samcifer]

We all know and understand that sometimes, what you want to pull off just doesn't exist in the game.

The design team has done a great job with certain subclasses, keeping them open but also concise in theme and abilities, allowing them to cover quite a lot of ground. I see the Paladin as an excellent example of this.

Others, I think there's some obvious ones where its more narrow in scope, and because of that, there's a ton of room for new options. Earth Domain Cleric is something I think should be added, for example.

And while you could achieve close to it by multiclassing, what if you'd rather stay single class?

Personally, I think the Monk in particular has a ton of untapped potential. Some of us might remember the idea of the Theurge, a mix of Cleric and Wizard. When they tried it for 5E, it was pretty poorly implemented. But what if you mixed Monk and Cleric? Get access to the Domain spells for a certain Ki cost, change your unarmed strike damage type to an associated damage type of your Domain (Forge gets Fire, for example), etc.

Or a blend of Monk and Paladin, spending Ki to deliver a Smite style ability.

I want a damage-boosting sub-class for monks. I'd also like to see a wizard sub-class that more closely mimics the swordmage class from 4e.

[jaappleton]

I want a damage-boosting sub-class for monks. I'd also like to see a wizard sub-class that more closely mimics the swordmage class from 4e.

I loved, loved the Swordmage. That's what the Stone Sorcerer from UA was trying to be, but IMO it just doesn't fit on a d6 class. Super tough to put it on the Fighter, then, without stepping all over the EK. No idea how they'd get it done.

I do think the Monk needs an overall damage boost, that's why I want a Smite-style one. Something that can really nova. It'd likely solve the issue if they could get some more magic item support, some weapons designed specifically with unarmed strikes in mind. Its an immensely small list as to what can truly help a Monk offensively as far as magic items go. The issue I find, as a class, is that all other martial warrior classes (And some gishes, like Bladelocks) get an outright damage boost at level 11 or 12. For Rangers, this is based into their subclass. Paladins get Improved Divine Smite. Fighters get their third attack. Barbarians get... well, the ability to defy death to keep them fighting.

Monks? Their unarmed strikes go from a d6 to a d8. Assuming you've been using a weapon for your first two attacks in a row up to that point, you've already been doing a d8 via a quarterstaff or similar weapon. So for your unarmed strikes, you're now doing another 1 damage per attack on average. That's just... So sorely lacking.

EDIT: As far as damage boosting subclass, I think the closest we've seen is the Way of Mercy (What an ironic name, considering). It allows them to do a quasi-smite style attack once per turn, but you need to have incapacitated (Stunning Strike'd?) the target, or have them be poisoned. And any feature relying on Poison in 5E is just... Damn, design team, go back to the drawing board.

[Cybren]

I want a sorcerer subclass that is more generically 'arcane' in flavor. (Like the arcane bloodline from pathfinder for example).

[Valmark]

A barbarian or caster that uses spells in rage (makes more sense as a barbarian sub-class).

It was one my favorite PrCs in 3.5 too.

[jaappleton]

A barbarian or caster that uses spells in rage (makes more sense as a barbarian sub-class).

It was one my favorite PrCs in 3.5 too.

I remember this one! Spellrager, I think it was called?

[Eldariel]

I remember this one! Spellrager, I think it was called?

Rage Mage.

[togapika]

I want a dancer subclass! Or maybe one version for Bard, and another for the Monk.

[Valmark]

I remember this one! Spellrager, I think it was called?

Rage mage! Used character level instead of caster level for spells, gave some free metamagic and armor, half level progression and boosted DCs of certain schools while in rage. And something else I don't remember.

Dunno how they could implement that in 5e's ruleset, but I'd play the hell out of it.

[Garfunion]

I would like an actual spell casting Arcane Archer that uses spell ammunition, like the smite spells but with ranged weapons.

[Edea]

A barbarian or caster that uses spells in rage (makes more sense as a barbarian sub-class).

It was one my favorite PrCs in 3.5 too.

The devs seem very intent on not doing that, unfortunately, given what we're seeing with the Path of Wild Magic preview (I'm not particularly happy about it; wrote up a homebrew for a caster-rager on here but it didn't really get any attention).

[Amnestic]

Draconic Warlock feels like it's absolutely missing from their patron list. I'm really surprised one's not been added yet. I made my own Heroic Spirit patron because they hadn't done one, so I don't need that (for me) anymore.

I'd like four separate elemental-themed sorcerer subclasses - I know we had some in UA (Phoenix, Stone) but I'm fairly sure they're not coming to print. I guess Storm is one of the four for Air, but we still need a water/ice, fire and earth bloodline to round out the set.

I've wanted a Divine Rogue subclass for a while, usually fluffed as the under-the-table agent of a church. Think Arcane Trickster except with Cleric stuff instead of Wizard. I know Trickery Cleric almost there but it's also...not what I want. I don't want Cleric (Rogue), I want Rogue (Cleric), you know?

[LtPowers]

As always when this question is asked: Bard College of Hymns.


Powers &8^]

[Sam113097]

I'd love Ocean and/or Cold Domain clerics, would enjoy a Nature Spirit- type Warlock Patron, and I always like more non-magical Fighter and Barbarian subclasses (A weapon specialist fighter might be fun, or a dual-wielding, dervish-type barbarian). I also wouldn't mind Warlord as a Fighter subclass.

[jaappleton]

I'd love Ocean and/or Cold Domain clerics, would enjoy a Nature Spirit- type Warlock Patron, and I always like more non-magical Fighter and Barbarian subclasses (A weapon specialist fighter might be fun, or a dual-wielding, dervish-type barbarian). I also wouldn't mind Warlord as a Fighter subclass.

I'd love a Warlock Patron that's more of a Shaman. Maybe let them cast using Wisdom instead of Charisma? That'd likely cause some problems, though, especially if everyone just dipped it. Could easily be mitigated with only allowing your Warlock spells to be cast with Wisdom. But then maybe you're too close to being a Druid.

There's absolutely room in the Patron list for a Nature oriented patron. Feel like Firbolg's would be a natural.

[Lord Raziere]

I mean, all or most these concepts listed so far probably have homebrew already made to make them exist somewhere if you just go digging for it, unless you don't count homebrew as existing....

[Valmark]

The devs seem very intent on not doing that, unfortunately, given what we're seeing with the Path of Wild Magic preview (I'm not particularly happy about it; wrote up a homebrew for a caster-rager on here but it didn't really get any attention).
Yeah, that's something I suspect too unfortunately- although they could make a non-Wild actually spellcasting barbarian, maybe (I doubt that).

I mean, all or most these concepts listed so far probably have homebrew already made to make them exist somewhere if you just go digging for it, unless you don't count homebrew as existing....

The problem with homebrew is that... Well, that it's homebrew. Not all DMs will accept it, while official stuff would be easier to get to play.

[Fishyninja]

For me (and it might only be me) I would love some subclasses for Monks and Rogues that focus on Strength rather than Dex.

Now I know there is a pretty successful Homebrew class called the Pugilist by Benjamin Huffman which is very good and sort of fills parts of those roles. You have Moxie points to spend on skills (Like the Monk's Ki) and you also get proficiency in Rogue Like abilities such as Stealth and Lockpicks etc. But again it is a whole class with its own subclasses.

Something like a Brawler Monk (maybe focusing on European Pugilisim) or a Thug Rogue would be good fun.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Ninja subclass for Rogue. Don't tell me it's assassin. And especially don't tell me to try shadow monk.

Telepathy/Psionic Warlock. No, not GOO, I mean like a psyker warlock, maybe a pact with some sort of 'Common Consciousness'.

Also better Gish options for Cleric. Level 6 domain feature for Extra attack?


I mean, all or most these concepts listed so far probably have homebrew already made to make them exist somewhere if you just go digging for it, unless you don't count homebrew as existing...
The issue is that adding homebrew to someone else's game requires a good amount of effort, especially when compared to just saying "oh here's this subclass from this WotC published adventure" or even "here's this UA I'd want to try out". The DM has a higher likelihood of rejecting it, as well.

[Waazraath]

I want a damage-boosting sub-class for monks. I'd also like to see a wizard sub-class that more closely mimics the swordmage class from 4e.

I'd like a grappling one; use dex(athletics) to grapple, give some extra options, some throws (Like the setting sun school in 3.5 ToB).

[jaappleton]

I mean, all or most these concepts listed so far probably have homebrew already made to make them exist somewhere if you just go digging for it, unless you don't count homebrew as existing....

There's a lot of Homebrew which is really, really, really good. Like, absolutely superb. Incredibly well balanced, and should be acceptable in darn near any game.

However, there's unfortunately many DMs who even hear the word 'homebrew' and instantly don't even want to look at it. And given some of the content out there (Looking at you, D&D Wiki), I can't say I blame them. There's also many who aren't well versed enough in particular game mechanics as to be able to make a good judgement call as to what's pretty balanced and what is absolutely over the top.

While so much homebrew out there is absolutely stellar, getting the greenlight to use it at the table often comes with its own set of issues.

[Amnestic]

While so much homebrew out there is absolutely stellar, getting the greenlight to use it at the table often comes with its own set of issues.

Time is a big one. It's safe to assume that anything published is "fine" and that there'll be ample discussions about fixing anything that's not. UA is usually dissected as well. Homebrew? Not so much, especially if it's not from a big name in the 'scene', you might struggle to find any useful feedback or comments on it, so DMs will have to review every piece one-by-one when they've already got plenty on (and it requires a level of system mastery they simply may not have yet). It's easier to just blanket say "no homebrew, sorry" when you're already putting together the rest of the campaign.

I don't think rejecting homebrew straight up is necessarily the 'best' path but I wouldn't begrudge any DM that does so. I do think it'd be helpful for more places to collate+promote "good/balanced" etc. brews, and I know some places do which is great.

[jaappleton]

Ninja subclass for Rogue. Don't tell me it's assassin. And especially don't tell me to try shadow monk.

Telepathy/Psionic Warlock. No, not GOO, I mean like a psyker warlock, maybe a pact with some sort of 'Common Consciousness'.

Also better Gish options for Cleric. Level 6 domain feature for Extra attack?


The issue is that adding homebrew to someone else's game requires a good amount of effort, especially when compared to just saying "oh here's this subclass from this WotC published adventure" or even "here's this UA I'd want to try out". The DM has a higher likelihood of rejecting it, as well.

Emphasis mine.

I'd absolutely love to see some sort of Warpriest in 5E. Extra attack, divine spells, domain oriented. However, doing so would require the two following things:

1. You either redesign the 5E Cleric to accomodate this as a thing, having to remove Divine Strike / Potent Cantrip at 8th level, change around when they get a second use of channel divinity, etc. or you build an entirely new class for it.

2. How do you accomplish that, and still not have it basically be a Paladin?

Unfortunately, this is where I think the 5E design philosophy became a bit too narrow in scope; It allows for full casters, half casters and 1/3rd casters. But not 2/3rd casters. I believe that's something they could create, with a little effort, but then you look at certain other things and ask, "Why wasn't this a 2/3rd caster?" (Artificer being a good example). I suppose they could try to tack it on to the Warlock chassis, maybe? Basically do the Warlock, key it off Wisdom, and give it the Cleric list instead of the Warlock list? But I'm very doubtful that ever happens.

[Rater202]

I like the idea of turning intosomething else.

Is there a subclass where you just... Turn into a monster? Like a Barbarian whose got some trolls blood or a Sorcerer bloodline where you fully and permenantly manifest whatever it is you're descended from because it's something a bit more... infectious than the more common bloodlines.

Or a wizard school that's just "you're on the fast track to becoming a Lich."

I'm not fully up to date, do any of those exis yet?

[kobo1d]

Prismatic magic Wizard, like Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil of 3.5.

[jojosskul]

I've wanted a Divine Rogue subclass for a while, usually fluffed as the under-the-table agent of a church. Think Arcane Trickster except with Cleric stuff instead of Wizard. I know Trickery Cleric almost there but it's also...not what I want. I don't want Cleric (Rogue), I want Rogue (Cleric), you know?

Came on here to say this. A 1/3rd caster but Cleric rogue subclass would be a lot of fun. Call it an Inquisitor maybe? With that mindset make the two "included" spell schools Divination and Enchantment as a mirror to the arcane trickster. Instead of obscuring the truth with illusion (which there are very few cleric illusion spells anyway) you reveal it with divination. Instead of using enchantment from arcane trickster to convince people of things that aren't true, you use enchantment as an Inquisitor to set people on the "right" path.

Lot's of RP fun and potential there. Hope to see something like it someday.

[Lord Raziere]

The problem with homebrew is that... Well, that it's homebrew. Not all DMs will accept it, while official stuff would be easier to get to play.

This thread isn't about whether a DM will accept it, its about whether it exists. And from some of the views I've seen, even official splatbooks are subject to "Not in my game".

So people leaving the tons of homebrew content out there to go unused is all their fault. I don't buy into stigmas like that. it probably exists somewhere and if you don't want to go find it because the GM will throw it out anyways because you and them expect the same few designers to do everything....thats your problem. keep hoping they will cater to every obscure thing people come up with, I'll wait.

[Wildstag]

I like the idea of turning intosomething else.

Is there a subclass where you just... Turn into a monster? Like a Barbarian whose got some trolls blood or a Sorcerer bloodline where you fully and permenantly manifest whatever it is you're descended from because it's something a bit more... infectious than the more common bloodlines.

I've long been an advocate of turning old 3.5e PrCs into archetypes, and I say that because what you described would work very well from a "Primeval" archetype for Barbarians. Maybe a Bear Warrior instead, but it could work.

This PrC-into-subclass idea works well for some themes too: the Frost-Rager would work really well if published in an Icewind Dale book like RotFM. Plus, a lot of these PrCs would theoretically already exist in the campaign settings, so there'd be a level of belonging to the setting.

[Amnestic]

Came on here to say this. A 1/3rd caster but Cleric rogue subclass would be a lot of fun. Call it an Inquisitor maybe? With that mindset make the two "included" spell schools Divination and Enchantment as a mirror to the arcane trickster. Instead of obscuring the truth with illusion (which there are very few cleric illusion spells anyway) you reveal it with divination. Instead of using enchantment from arcane trickster to convince people of things that aren't true, you use enchantment as an Inquisitor to set people on the "right" path.

Lot's of RP fun and potential there. Hope to see something like it someday.

I'd be worried the name is too close to the already-existing Inquisitive Rogue for Inquisitor to get a pass. "Divine Agent" (or even just 'Agent') might work, there's probably a bunch of names that would work


This thread isn't about whether a DM will accept it, its about whether it exists. And from some of the views I've seen, even official splatbooks are subject to "Not in my game".

So people leaving the tons of homebrew content out there to go unused is all their fault. I don't buy into stigmas like that. it probably exists somewhere and if you don't want to go find it because the GM will throw it out anyways because you and them expect the same few designers to do everything....thats your problem. keep hoping they will cater to every obscure thing people come up with, I'll wait.

AL is a thing for many so getting it published is preferable.

[Protolisk]

There's one archetype that just confuses me how it slipped through the cracks, but other classes got UA of them instead.

How is there a Barbarian class based on rages, but can't "hulk out" and become larger?

Yet, there were two rounds of Giant based subclasses, and both times Barbarian was passed by. Sorcerers and Fighters? It felt odd to me, especially when the base Giants aren't really all that magical (though the stronger ones, as well as Cloud giants, do have innate magic). Runes sort of made sense, but why did Fighter get that instead of Barbarian?

I had to homebrew my own using Rune Knight and the Giant Soul as a guide.

[Lord Raziere]

AL is a thing for many so getting it published is preferable.

That is not my concern. You don't seem to understand: This is not an argument I'm making. Its an offer. An offer to find stuff for you that may help with at least making sure you know it exists in some form, to make sure your dreams are confirmed to have some reality even if its not the reality you'd prefer so that you can stop wondering and at least enjoy the fact that it exists. I do not care what you do with what I find or how you get to play it or whether you play it all, only whether you'd want me to find it. If you don't want my offer thats fine, I won't bother if you reject. Just know that some things have a cost, and sometimes the cost of what you want is that you'll never be able to use it in certain capacities- but at least with me finding it, the chances of using it go from zero to some small percentage. I'm just trying to help in some small way. If no one wants to take me up on it? Oh well, more for me.

[Grey Watcher]

(I know some/most of these exist in homebrew, by the way.)

A Prophecy Domain: The Knowledge Domain is very past-focused.

Elemental Domains: We've got Tempest and Light. I wanna see Flame or Stone or Sea or (non-stormy) Sky.

A Destruction/Primordial Chaos Domain.

[Blood of Gaea]

There's one archetype that just confuses me how it slipped through the cracks, but other classes got UA of them instead.

How is there a Barbarian class based on rages, but can't "hulk out" and become larger?

Yet, there were two rounds of Giant based subclasses, and both times Barbarian was passed by. Sorcerers and Fighters? It felt odd to me, especially when the base Giants aren't really all that magical (though the stronger ones, as well as Cloud giants, do have innate magic). Runes sort of made sense, but why did Fighter get that instead of Barbarian?

I had to homebrew my own using Rune Knight and the Giant Soul as a guide.
A Rune Knight Barbarian is what I was going to come here to say, it seems like it would be a lot of fun. Rage also causes you to grow in size, then you have abiliites like the nifty runes the UA got.

[Valmark]

That is not my concern. You don't seem to understand: This is not an argument I'm making. Its an offer. An offer to find stuff for you that may help with at least making sure you know it exists in some form, to make sure your dreams are confirmed to have some reality even if its not the reality you'd prefer so that you can stop wondering and at least enjoy the fact that it exists. I do not care what you do with what I find or how you get to play it or whether you play it all, only whether you'd want me to find it. If you don't want my offer thats fine, I won't bother if you reject. Just know that some things have a cost, and sometimes the cost of what you want is that you'll never be able to use it in certain capacities- but at least with me finding it, the chances of using it go from zero to some small percentage. I'm just trying to help in some small way. If no one wants to take me up on it? Oh well, more for me.

You said nothing like that though earlier?

On another note, I agree with whoever it was that mentioned the prismatic wizard.

[Lord Raziere]

You said nothing like that though earlier?


Well I'm saying it now. Take it or leave it. Geez can't even decide whether you want me to help look up some homebrew (a thing by itself won't cost you anything to use or find) for nothing in return. And you'd rather stay here wondering if you'll ever get it someday rather than going forth to find the work already done for you so you don't have to go reinventing the wheel by making it yourself.

Just trying to help! But if you don't want the offer.....oh well. *shrug* I'm not helping people who don't want it.

[Hawk7915]

A proper Shadowdancer for Rogue - Way of Shadow Monk does a lot of what Shadowdancer did, and Gloom Stalker Ranger does the rest, but most 3.5 Shadow Dancers I knew were base Rogue. Needing 9 levels worth of dip (Monk 6 and Ranger 3) to get online all that I want for a Shadow Dancer is a bit frustrating.

I'd like to see Archmage as a Sorcerer Background, with more and expanded metamagic uses/points, to have a Sorcerer whose power comes from a "powerful magical lineage" (to be more in keeping with a variety of fictional worlds).

I'd love to see a STR or WIS-primary "Warden" ranger mimicking the 4e class.

Given that we have a Storm Domain Cleric, I would like to have a Frost and Fire domain cleric to go with it.

[LibraryOgre]

I want a sorcerer subclass that is more generically 'arcane' in flavor. (Like the arcane bloodline from pathfinder for example).

Hello? Is it me you're looking for? (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2019/03/magic-bloodline-for-sorcerers.html)

For me, I want subclasses that obviate the need for multiclassing. I want a druidy-fighter. I want a warlocky-fighter. I want a clericy-fighter. I want a druidy-rogue. I want a warlocky-rogue. I want a clericy-rogue. I want a monk-rogue and a rogue-monk.

[KorvinStarmast]

The devs seem very intent on not doing that, unfortunately, Fortunately, they aren't doing prestige classes.

Draconic Warlock feels like it's absolutely missing from their patron list. Hmm, I don't need one, but I think that thematically this is a pretty good icea. An Ancient Dragon is your patron, just like a high level celestial like an Empyraen is. Love it. Would love to see this.

I'd like four separate elemental-themed sorcerer subclasses
Can't people do this by their spell choices and using the elemental adept feat as many times as needed?

I'd love Ocean and/or Cold Domain clerics. I'd love an Ocean Domain cleric.

Ninja subclass for Rogue. Yeah.

Gish options for Cleric. Level 6 domain feature for Extra attack? Cleric, as a class, is already fine. I'd like to see any other class get love first.

2. How do you accomplish that, and still not have it basically be a Paladin? Which means that you just answered your own question; Paladin has that niche filled.

Unfortunately, this is where I think the 5E design philosophy became a bit too narrow in scope;
Fortunately ... is my two cents worth.

[jaappleton]

Hello? Is it me you're looking for? (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2019/03/magic-bloodline-for-sorcerers.html)

For me, I want subclasses that obviate the need for multiclassing. I want a druidy-fighter. I want a warlocky-fighter. I want a clericy-fighter. I want a druidy-rogue. I want a warlocky-rogue. I want a clericy-rogue. I want a monk-rogue and a rogue-monk.

Many would decry "Too much bloat!", but I also really want pretty much all of this.

[Nagog]

Personally? I think Rangers could use more subclasses with some of the following explored options:

A Subclass that doesn't rely constantly on using your Bonus Action to get the extra 1d8 damage. If Two-Weapon Fighting is a fighting style available to them, their Bonus Action should be at least somewhat free to use it. So far, the only ones where that is a viable option is Swarmkeeper (who has it's bonus damage reduced to 1d6 as a result) and Monster Hunter (who's ability is target-dependent, like a weaker Hunter's Mark). Considering they don't have access to any Fighting Styles that work well with two-handed weapons (offensively at least), the least they could do is make the fighting styles they do have access to more viable.

And a Subclass that isn't overly nature themed. Once again Monster Hunter is the closest thing to this currently, but I think an Urban-themed Ranger with some Rogue-ish abilities would be a lot of fun. Scout Rogue does this in reverse, having an Urban Ranger would be a fun parallel.

Lastly, I would love to see a Debuff Warlock, perhaps flavored as a type of Witch Doctor, casting curses on your enemies. Hexblade tried to be that, but Hexblade is... well, broken as all the lower planes and really all over the place with flavor. A Caster Warlock that gains access to spells like Bane, Confusion, Polymorph, and other such spells would be loads of fun. Considering Warlock's lack of extensive spell slots, Concentration won't limit your versatility as much as most other casters (Concentration Cantrips are extremely few and far between).

[KorvinStarmast]

About sub classes that don't exist.

Psionic sub classes.
But, really, I think that all said and done, I might feel better about psionics being a class and having as many sub classes as clerics do. I would rather they go that way with Psionics.

Sub classes include:
Rogue/blade psionics.
Warrior (Psy Warrior, Armed)
Monk (Psy Warrior, Unarmed)
Combined Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Bard: one Psionic 'arcane caster' kind of subclass.
Only One.
One Psy Nature class to fold in Ranger / Druid / Beasts / Animals

[jaappleton]

About sub classes that don't exist.

Psionic sub classes.
But, really, I think that all said and done, I might feel better about psionics being a class and having as many sub classes as clerics do. I would rather they go that way with Psionics.

Sub classes include:
Rogue/blade psionics.
Warrior (Psy Warrior, Armed)
Monk (Psy Warrior, Unarmed)
Combined Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Bard: one Psionic 'arcane caster' kind of subclass.
Only One.
One Psy Nature class to fold in Ranger / Druid / Beasts / Animals

I must admit I'm pretty shocked that we never saw the latest Psionics that will be in Tasha's. They tried it, then tried it with the Psi Die, discovered people hate the Psi Die and scrapped the Psi Die, and then it went quiet. Whatever is in Tasha's, we'll have not playtested or seen before. Which is strange, because I look at all possible character options (UA included) and see the ones with Psi Die and its like... "Yeah, you don't exist anymore. So... I can't pick you, before you're going to be different in two months."

[LibraryOgre]

Many would decry "Too much bloat!", but I also really want pretty much all of this.

A druidy-monk subclass that focuses on wildshaping.

[jaappleton]

A druidy-monk subclass that focuses on wildshaping.

I actually really want this. Either a Barbarian, Fighter or Monk.

But the idea of being a beast, or animal. I played a Bear once, and I used a Druid. I was a bear that wandered through an ancient, abandoned druid grove that had lingering magic, and suddenly I was able to do so much more. It was a blast to play, as every Wild Shape was some sort of bear (Spider? Bear with many legs. Frog? Jumping, croaking bear.)

It was particularly great when I'd find a book or scroll and everyone would ask me what it says, only for me to say, "I'm a damn bear, I can't read! Where's the honey?!" and hurl it over my shoulder. Wanted to do that to the Tome of Strahd but he never lived long enough to get to it. :smalltongue:

But I really want to play something more fitting. So if a party member plays, say, a Totem Barbarian or a Ranger, I can be their 'animal companion' and maul things. The Living Weapon Monk subclass from Exploring Eberron does a pretty decent job of this, but I'd prefer something more official.

[Nagog]

I must admit I'm pretty shocked that we never saw the latest Psionics that will be in Tasha's. They tried it, then tried it with the Psi Die, discovered people hate the Psi Die and scrapped the Psi Die, and then it went quiet. Whatever is in Tasha's, we'll have not playtested or seen before. Which is strange, because I look at all possible character options (UA included) and see the ones with Psi Die and its like... "Yeah, you don't exist anymore. So... I can't pick you, before you're going to be different in two months."

Why didn't they like the Psi die? I'm playing a Ranger in a bit with the Wild Talent feat (on Dex) and I'm stoked to be using it. To be fair I don't see much reliable content in the subclasses for it (if your subclass can be simplified into a feat, it isn't potent enough), but the Psi Die looks pretty fun to me.


A druidy-monk subclass that focuses on wildshaping.

I would love any kind of martial Druid, with or without Wild Shape (IMO Wild Shape is extremely weak and restrictive, even with Moon's buffs. Moon 20's unlimited HP cheese is the only thing that makes them decent IMO, and it's all cheese). Something like a Bladesinger for Druids (Or ya know any subclass that didn't have the "no metal" flavor enforcement would be FANTASTIC).

[KorvinStarmast]

I can't pick you, before you're going to be different in two months." I am so hoping that they get Psionics right, since it so easy to get psionics wrong, based on psionics since about 1976 being a real bugger to get right ... we'll see.
*Fingers crossed*

For Nagog (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24724439&postcount=45):
I've got something like that over in Homebrew. But I never did go final on it.

[jaappleton]

I am so hoping that they get Psionics right, since it so easy to get psionics wrong, based on psionics since about 1976 being a real bugger to get right ... we'll see.
*Fingers crossed*


Truly, I do not envy the position the design team is in regarding Psionics.

Each version of D&D prior has had Psionics. None of them used the same method of implementation. So every fan of Psionics wants their favorite version. How exactly are they supposed to go about making everyone happy in this instance?

You can look at the 5e Paladin and Cleric and definitely say, "Yup. Those are Paladin and Cleric, 100%"

I am genuinely concerned that people will look at Psionics and not quite know what they're looking at. Or they'll know it instantly, and hate it because it isn't what they had in mind.

-----

Why did they hate Psi Die, someone asked. They didn't. The design team liked it, they wanted a unique mechanic to represent the ebb and flow of psionic power pulsing from a character. However, in the feedback surveys, fans hated the idea of a new mechanic. "Less is more, 5E is supposed to be streamlined and not finnicky, etc".

Which I don't agree with. At all. Its been five years, folks, you can handle the idea of one separate die to keep track of. Seriously.

[AvatarVecna]

Let's do one per class:

Barbarian: Casting subclass. Basically every class in the game can be a caster anyway, so give the barbarian one too. I'm imagining two possibilities.

The first is a shaman kinda class, 1/3 spontaneous Wis casting from the druid list, with a focus on utility - basically an offshoot of totem barbarian that focuses more on the spiritual side than the "mimicking animal combat styles" side. You'd still be a beast in-combat (maybe even literally, if you decide to mix in a bit of Wild Shape esque abilities), but more importantly Barbarian would be far more relevant outside combat.

The second idea is kind of a blood mage/runescarred berserker/rage mage kinda deal: the barbarian has access to a list with some decent buffs (I'd go bard or sorcerer), is a 1/3 Cha-based caster, and is focused on taking advantage of just how tough they are. Ideas for this include spending HP to cast or improve spells, or focusing on buffing Concentration (taking advantage of the barbarian's naturally-high Con save). A potential idea for a higher-level ability here would be that the barbarian's rage focus is so absolute that he can maintain multiple Concentration spells, although there should still be a downside. I don't think Berserker deserves to have an exhaustion cost, given what it provides you with, but "multiple concentration" is definitely the kind of thing that could be balanced against by risking exhaustion when you use it. Maybe it auto-happens if you multi-concentrate during a rage, maybe it's a consequence for if your concentration is broken.

Bard: Seeker Of The Song kind of bard, one that focuses on Bardic Inspiration above all else. Gains more inspirations per rest, and at each subclass feature they can choose a new method of applying inspiration dice from a list of options (maybe even just the methods available to any existing bard subclass). Potentially let the bard trade out Expertise and Magical Secrets for additional choices, and give some ribbon abilities focused on leadership and inspiration and performance.

Cleric: Luck Domain, leaning towards a rogue-ish playstyle. Early skill proficiencies, Channel Divinity and other features focused on rerolls/getting advantage more often, a domain spell list focused on skill-based utility (Pass Without Trace, Open Lock, Enhance Ability...stuff like that).

Druid: Beastmaster. Just...instead of better casting or better wild shape, an animal companion.

Fighter: A proper Int-based Fighter, applying their intelligence to more effectively affect things during a fight, and to maybe have some non-combat utility. Something you could really build Roy with, yknow? Maybe even grants bonus skill proficiencies.

Monk: 1/3 Wis-casting off the Cleric list, probably with a focus on healing and support. Real Miyagi type.

Paladin: Official subclass for a dedicated Ranged Paladin, rather than having to beg the DM or find a cheeky workaround to get your smites in. That is all.

Ranger: Urban ranger focused on police/detective work and (to a degree) the social pillar.

Rogue: Another caster rogue. One idea is to ping off Unseen Seer and make a 1/3 Int-based divination/illusion specialist. Another idea is to make a 1/3 Cha-based caster using the bard list, focusing on enchantment spells - an alternate, more focused version of the Arcane Trickster.

Sorcerer: Metamagic specialty instead of a bloodline. Extra metamagic, extra spells known, just a general arcanist.

Warlock: The idea here is ripping off the Ur-Priest. A particular deity is your (unwilling unknowing) patron who you're stealing your magic from. Your patron spells are a particular domain's spells, you can snipe additional cleric spells via invocations/patron abilities...maybe you can pick a Holy Symbol for your Pact Boon that lets you steal enough divine power for Channel Divinity esque abilities, invocations to steal particular domain powers (or maybe even some equivalent to Divine Intervention).

Wizard: Ritual Caster. No, not like the feat. Like, quicker rituals, or longer rituals to upcast the spells, or cooperative casting to upcast rituals, or multi-Concentration via rituals, or turning non-rituals into rituals. Ritual Caster.

EDIT: And before anybody goes "but wait I've seen homebrew that does stuff like that, why not use that?", you're not wrong. At least 3 of these are intentionally ripped from homebrew I've seen, and the others might be inspired by homebrew I've half-forgotten. There's a Cha-based caster rogue that's can trade sneak attack for charm-stabbing. There's a handful of ritual wizards. There's gotta be at least one person who's homebrewed a druid with an animal companion or a healer monk. Everyone and their mother has made their own "I dont want to bother with this bloodline nonsense I just wanna cast dangnabbit" homebrew sorcerer subclass.

That's not the point of listing them here. I'd like them to be official content. I'd like them to be a part of the game where the default answer is "yes, that is allowed".

[rlc]

That is not my concern. You don't seem to understand: This is not an argument I'm making. Its an offer. An offer to find stuff for you that may help with at least making sure you know it exists in some form, to make sure your dreams are confirmed to have some reality even if its not the reality you'd prefer so that you can stop wondering and at least enjoy the fact that it exists. I do not care what you do with what I find or how you get to play it or whether you play it all, only whether you'd want me to find it. If you don't want my offer thats fine, I won't bother if you reject. Just know that some things have a cost, and sometimes the cost of what you want is that you'll never be able to use it in certain capacities- but at least with me finding it, the chances of using it go from zero to some small percentage. I'm just trying to help in some small way. If no one wants to take me up on it? Oh well, more for me.

Well, if this isn't a copypasta, then it is now

[jaappleton]

Paladin: Official subclass for a dedicated Ranged Paladin, rather than having to beg the DM or find a cheeky workaround to get your smites in. That is all.


I want this to exist. Pathfinder has their own version, calling it the Divine Hunter.

However, I legitimately know no way of going about implementing this in 5E without also putting the final nail in the Ranger's coffin.

[AvatarVecna]

I want this to exist. Pathfinder has their own version, calling it the Divine Hunter.

However, I legitimately know no way of going about implementing this in 5E without also putting the final nail in the Ranger's coffin.

The ranger has lots of issues - focusing on a non-combat pillar a little more than other classes, trying to do combat/skills/casting and ending up being mediocre at all of them. Basically it's require a complete rework, probably with subclasses focusing on the various things ranger could be rather than trying to make base ranger so...jumbled. But fixing ranger seems to be difficult, given how frequently they've had to take a stab at it, and I'll admit it seems like a hard class to build properly without it just looking like a reflavored paladin.

[Dienekes]

Let’s see.

Well if we don’t ever get a Warlord class, I’d break it up and place parts of it in other classes.

So I’d be looking for:

Veteran Soldier Fighter: Focuses on being a frontline soldier style fighter with a lot of interactions with other allies. Granting abilities allies can opt in to using, but allow for a lot of battlefield control when the group works as a team.

Inspiring Hero Fighter: Another frontline fighter, this one focuses more on performing the usual fighter-y actions of smacking people in the face and then boosting the allies with more damage, health, attacks sort of thing. The simple Warlord if you would.

Warchief Barbarian: gives allies rage bonuses and overruning abilities.

Tactician Rogue: A rogue that stands back from the battlefield and can boost allies. Possibly equate these boosts based off of the number of Sneak Attack dice you have. Honestly it’s not great, but without a Warlord I have to make do with the options available.

Other than that I’ve always wanted:

Werebarian. Using rage to change into some form of lycanthropic creature just makes sense to me.

Honestly, I have a few more, but they all basically share the same theme of “I want WotC to make (mostly non-magic martials admittedly) subclasses that have different refresh mechanics than Short or Long Rest.” So far the most fun d20 class I’ve played has been the Warblade. And a good chunk of that is the way maneuvers are used and the player has to choose whether or not to refresh them mid-combat. Come on WotC, it’s been years. You can break the arbitrary pattern you’ve set up for yourselves.

[zinycor]

I would like a plant druid... like the equivalent for moon druid, but for transforming into a plant form.

[Amnestic]

Other than that I’ve always wanted:

Werebarian. Using rage to change into some form of lycanthropic creature just makes sense to me.

I believe this is showing up in Tasha's as "Path of the Beast"?

[Yakmala]

Here are a few that I've attempted in the past via either re-skins or homebrew that I'd like to see official versions of:

1: A Strength based Rogue class based around brute force, intimidation and dirty tricks. Your classic Thug.

2: A leadership and tactics based martial support subclass with Int as one of the important stats.

3: A Dragon Patron Warlock.

4: A magic/elemental based Monk that isn't terrible.

5: A luck/fortune domain Cleric.

6: Path of the Nomad Barbarian. Skilled with ranged and/or thrown weapons and potentially riding.

[Rater202]

I'm serious, I just want the option to go from "normalish human(oid)" at levelone and be a dragon or a troll or something cthuloid at level 20. Not "have traits similar to or inspired by" not "turn into or use it's powers so many times a day," just...

Like, obviously it doesn't have to be mechanically identical to the monster(assuming there is a monster) but, ya know, be comperable.

[cutlery]

Non-shadowy, non-holy, arcane half caster.

Probably more a class than a subclass, unfortunately, as the ranger and paladin class bones and spell lists already skew things a certain way flavor-wise, and the warlock is too shadow-themed.

The artificer isn’t really it, either, but it could make a nice blueprint to build from.

Probably more of a martial sorcerer than a martial wizard, now that I ponder it; and I don’t think an extra attack origin for sorcerers is enough (and generally high level magic is too much for a well built martial to still feel like a martial).

[jaappleton]

I'm serious, I just want the option to go from "normalish human(oid)" at levelone and be a dragon or a troll or something cthuloid at level 20. Not "have traits similar to or inspired by" not "turn into or use it's powers so many times a day," just...

Like, obviously it doesn't have to be mechanically identical to the monster(assuming there is a monster) but, ya know, be comperable.

I'm all for this. I've seen a few Dragon oriented Druid circles, giving things like breath weapon and the like.

But that's still a base Druid using Wild Shape. That's Moon with a specific flair.

Lets REALLY get a true beast / animal / etc. Personally I would build it off of a Barbarian, if we used an existing class as a chassis, but I can see it needing its own class.

[Rater202]

I'm all for this. I've seen a few Dragon oriented Druid circles, giving things like breath weapon and the like.

But that's still a base Druid using Wild Shape. That's Moon with a specific flair.

Lets REALLY get a true beast / animal / etc. Personally I would build it off of a Barbarian, if we used an existing class as a chassis, but I can see it needing its own class.

Somewhere in the ancient annals of of this forum's Homebrew subforum is a class for 3.5 and/or pathfinder 1e that's gimmick is "like a sorcerer, but trades casting for being even more like what your ancestor is." With subclasses for it based on what your bloodline was.

There was a Troll Subclass and a Phoenix one and some others I can't remember... But that was in 2011 or 2012, when I was still lurking and I can't even remember the name.

If I can find it, I'll link it as an example of the kind of thing I'm looking for.

[rlc]

I believe this is showing up in Tasha's as "Path of the Beast"?

And I'm pretty sure that one of the other ua barbarians let you give other people your reckless attack feature

[Valmark]

Speaking of homebrews, there was (well, is) a very cool homebrew class on this site for 3.5- the Evolutionist (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?240717-The-better-man-There-is-no-such-thing-base-class&highlight=Evolutionist). Would love to see a similar class for 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

The artificer isn’t really it, either, but it could make a nice blueprint to build from.
For my money, the Artificer remains poorly constructed, poorly conceptualized, and is a bad fit for D&D 5e.
I realize that this is may involve a matter of taste.

Suggestion to WoTC: don't use it as a blueprint for anything, please.

[jaappleton]

Non-shadowy, non-holy, arcane half caster.

Probably more a class than a subclass, unfortunately, as the ranger and paladin class bones and spell lists already skew things a certain way flavor-wise, and the warlock is too shadow-themed.

The artificer isn’t really it, either, but it could make a nice blueprint to build from.

Probably more of a martial sorcerer than a martial wizard, now that I ponder it; and I don’t think an extra attack origin for sorcerers is enough (and generally high level magic is too much for a well built martial to still feel like a martial).

I do think the "Swordmage", as it were, can exist as an Artificer. Extra attack at 5th level. Flavor it as you give your ally (eventually allies) a device or something for when they're in danger, you can use your reaction to teleport within 5ft of that device and make an attack against their aggressor. Fire / cold / lightning / acid damage boost at some point, maybe that's their 'smite' is charging their weapon with elemental energy?

It can work. It absolutely can.

Plus it fills in a big gap with Artificer: Just let me use a weapon and hit things. Don't make me deal with a pet, or some super specific armor or something. Just let me be a half caster and hit things, please, without the extra stuff.

[Luccan]

-----

Why did they hate Psi Die, someone asked. They didn't. The design team liked it, they wanted a unique mechanic to represent the ebb and flow of psionic power pulsing from a character. However, in the feedback surveys, fans hated the idea of a new mechanic. "Less is more, 5E is supposed to be streamlined and not finnicky, etc".

Which I don't agree with. At all. Its been five years, folks, you can handle the idea of one separate die to keep track of. Seriously.

While some people did insist that psionics should not have a unique mechanic, there was a lot of pushback from other viewpoints. From "Mystic was perfectly serviceable you just needed to tone it down" to "I don't want psionics to be based on randomness" and even "The first draft psi die seems really poorly thought out". I do think it's strange we've heard nothing on psionics since and are getting at least one subclass for it sight unseen. My money is there's no special mechanic for it

---

I'd like a Barbarian with a more obvious malevolent bent. Maybe your rage and strength are fueled by a demon or something from the Far Realm. Maybe it's a curse. It's kind of a vague idea you could represent with basically any existing barbarian, but I'd like to see what a subclass with that in mind looks like.

Something I haven't gotten far with and would love to see are subclasses for fighter and rogue that use Invocations. No extra spells or cantrips. I'm even against giving them pact boons. Just the ones without prereqs besides level. Those that remain are mostly utility and I think it would be interesting to see what people build with that. Other subclass features are the real hard part.

Oh, and explicit fey/infernal origins for sorcerer. Similarly to the lack of a Draconic Pact Warlock, the lack of these seems to be to avoid stepping on toes, but WotC has already shown they don't mind doing that in other cases, so bring 'em on. I also think a Mutant sorcerer would be good. I imagine them being accidentally granted sorcerous magic by exposure to wild magic or direct experimentation. In addition to spells, they would have physical mutations that gave them extra abilities like a third eye (which grants things like Detect Magic) or extra limbs. I also think it would be a great place to introduce an actual Sorcerer gish.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

For my money, the Artificer remains poorly constructed, poorly conceptualized, and is a bad fit for D&D 5e.
I realize that this is may involve a matter of taste.

Suggestion to WoTC: don't use it as a blueprint for anything, please.

Agreed.

I honestly think half their features are ribbons.

[cutlery]

For my money, the Artificer remains poorly constructed, poorly conceptualized, and is a bad fit for D&D 5e.
I realize that this is may involve a matter of taste.

Suggestion to WoTC: don't use it as a blueprint for anything, please.

I was referring more to the half caster-with-cantrips skeleton.

I don't like the flavor of the class at all, but I never liked much from Eberron anyway - tastes differ.



I do think the "Swordmage", as it were, can exist as an Artificer. Extra attack at 5th level. Flavor it as you give your ally (eventually allies) a device or something for when they're in danger, you can use your reaction to teleport within 5ft of that device and make an attack against their aggressor. Fire / cold / lightning / acid damage boost at some point, maybe that's their 'smite' is charging their weapon with elemental energy?

It can work. It absolutely can.

Plus it fills in a big gap with Artificer: Just let me use a weapon and hit things. Don't make me deal with a pet, or some super specific armor or something. Just let me be a half caster and hit things, please, without the extra stuff.

Probably; but they don't seem to do that much reflavoring of base classes with subclasses.

The artificer spell list isn't the sort of one I'd want, anyway.

No blade cantrips, no shield, no mirror image, no steel wind strike; armorer gets some of these.

At least it has blink, I spose.


The shoulder mounted lightning launcher is... well. It's something all right, but not what I think of when I think of someone swinging a big sword with magic sprinkles.


Something sort of like the artificer could work with heavy reflavoring and a different list, but you could same the same for a paladin or ranger.

I'm not the right one to ask at all, though, because I strongly dislike all of the flavor text in the class.

I'd probably play a paladin instead, and I'm not super keen on them, either.

[MadBear]

Would love to see Fantasy avengers be easily playable from level 1. So....

1. artificer who specializes in a single suit of armor (aka fantasy iron man)
2. Unarmed Barbarian who has a giant leap ability and whose rage increases size by 1 increment


I think that's it. From there Battle master fighter can be Captain America, Wizard covers Dr. Strange, Cleric covers Thor, Assassin cover Black Widow, Arcane Archer covers Hawkeye, etc.

[togapika]

You want me to help look up some homebrew

Got any dancer type subclasses? I can look up homebrew, but I don't know shirt when it comes to balance in 5e, so I wouldn't be able to tell if something was fair to play

[MrStabby]

So whenever these threads pop up - every 9 months or so, I usually put down my new wishes. I probably will just focus on others thoughts for now though.




Prismatic magic Wizard, like Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil of 3.5.

When I hear "prismatic wizard" I think things like chromatic orb, color spray... prismatic wall. Maybe hypnotic pattern... So I would love this as a theme, but I think there would need to be a LOT more prismatic spells to make it work, or at least much better ways to upcast them. I would really like to see this, although to me this is more a bard thing than a wizard thing.


This thread isn't about whether a DM will accept it, its about whether it exists. And from some of the views I've seen, even official splatbooks are subject to "Not in my game".

So people leaving the tons of homebrew content out there to go unused is all their fault. I don't buy into stigmas like that. it probably exists somewhere and if you don't want to go find it because the GM will throw it out anyways because you and them expect the same few designers to do everything....thats your problem. keep hoping they will cater to every obscure thing people come up with, I'll wait.
I don't think we need to get to bentout of shape over someone using "existing" in a different way to you. It is just a pretty fun thread about what we might get excited by if it were to be released - a chance to share views and ideas and oppinionson what is cool. Join in with the spirit of the thing. Enjoy it.





Lastly, I would love to see a Debuff Warlock, perhaps flavored as a type of Witch Doctor, casting curses on your enemies. Hexblade tried to be that, but Hexblade is... well, broken as all the lower planes and really all over the place with flavor. A Caster Warlock that gains access to spells like Bane, Confusion, Polymorph, and other such spells would be loads of fun. Considering Warlock's lack of extensive spell slots, Concentration won't limit your versatility as much as most other casters (Concentration Cantrips are extremely few and far between).

I would love a witch doctor. I kind of had some discussions about it... 5 years ago? Between nature cleric, death cleric, what you could do with a lore bard it seemed you could get pretty close. I would say that it would be nice to get more of it under one roof though.


A druidy-monk subclass that focuses on wildshaping.

Would be really up for a druidy monk. Would be so disapointed if it involved wildshaping.

Its kind of probably just me... but if I go to the trouble of picking/creating a character I want to play, then I want to play it. I don't want to play a bear or a dinosaur instead.

But monks with some druid spells would be good - even if only following a similar progression to 4 elements monks. With fairy fire, heat metal, plant growth, conjure fey... you can get a lot of abilities that don't get left behind and are still a good use of an action in a way that damage spells often are not.


Truly, I do not envy the position the design team is in regarding Psionics.

Each version of D&D prior has had Psionics. None of them used the same method of implementation. So every fan of Psionics wants their favorite version. How exactly are they supposed to go about making everyone happy in this instance?

You can look at the 5e Paladin and Cleric and definitely say, "Yup. Those are Paladin and Cleric, 100%"

I am genuinely concerned that people will look at Psionics and not quite know what they're looking at. Or they'll know it instantly, and hate it because it isn't what they had in mind.

-----

Why did they hate Psi Die, someone asked. They didn't. The design team liked it, they wanted a unique mechanic to represent the ebb and flow of psionic power pulsing from a character. However, in the feedback surveys, fans hated the idea of a new mechanic. "Less is more, 5E is supposed to be streamlined and not finnicky, etc".

Which I don't agree with. At all. Its been five years, folks, you can handle the idea of one separate die to keep track of. Seriously.

So I don't really like the fluff for psionics. I think that turns me off a bit. I think bringing it a bit more in line with classical fantasy would appease me. That said, I thought the psi-die was pretty cool; my only issue was that as a subclass thing it was a bit too small of a part of what the whole character might offer.


I would like a plant druid... like the equivalent for moon druid, but for transforming into a plant form.

Just... yes. On the theme... On the delivery I would prefer something like the Shepherd druid. Instead of buffing summon spells it buffs spells like entangle, plant growth, grasping vine and similar.



For my money, the Artificer remains poorly constructed, poorly conceptualized, and is a bad fit for D&D 5e.
I realize that this is may involve a matter of taste.

Suggestion to WoTC: don't use it as a blueprint for anything, please.

I have mixed views on the arificer. On the one hand I hate it. On the other hand it has grown on me a bit and I mrely dislike it and believe it has no place in my games. I would be a lot more amenable to it if it had been more generic at first then Eberron subclasses were added that gave the magitech flavour. So an arificer based round scrolls, round runes or caligrapher's tools, round forging and using great weapons - something that is a bit easier to fit into different worlds. I guess I want a high level artificer to feel more like Sauron and less like Tony Stark.

[Temperjoke]

I'd like a class that's like the Blue Mages of Final Fantasy, where they somehow acquire the abilities/powers that enemy creatures naturally possess.

[clash]

Got any dancer type subclasses? I can look up homebrew, but I don't know shirt when it comes to balance in 5e, so I wouldn't be able to tell if something was fair to play

Honestly if you rename the abilities from drunken master monk it works perfectly as a dancer subclass.

Level 3:
Proficiency in performance and see if you can swap brewers tools for a musical instrument.

For the rest I have suggestions in this old thread
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?520576-Drunken-master-refluff

[Cybren]

Hello? Is it me you're looking for? (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2019/03/magic-bloodline-for-sorcerers.html)

no, it’s not

[Wraith]

I would like a plant druid... like the equivalent for moon druid, but for transforming into a plant form.

I like this one. Then again, having seen this I would now like to go back down the route of the Planar Shepherd - pick a Domain/Plane/Patron/Bloodline equivalent, and now you get spells and wildshapes of that type instead of Beasts.
Maybe tone it back from the 3.5 version which was OP as all heck, but "Druid of a non-Material Plane type" has always been a favourite of mine.

I'd also like to see a Druid of the Swarm - loses some wildshapes/spells/etc in order to gain rules that let them turn into a Swarm-type, with appropriate rules for scaling up in levels. Creepy, but fun.

I'd also like a Cleric Domain which changes their Turn Undead ability into a way to affect other creature types - Maybe one that can choose to specialise in Fiends or Fae for example, or just make them a full-on Exorcist-type character that can Turn several other creatures as they improve in level, perhaps gaining Preferred Enemy-type upgrades. Not optimal, but I feel that Turning is a fun yet underutilized mechanic that could stand to have a bit of tweaking.

First and foremost though, as others have mentioned earlier, I'd like to see Ranger rebuilt to be viable. I'm sure it can be done with a fairly small amount of effort to give it's niche back, and I'd be sad to see it be left to stagnate for a few more years until D&D 6th Ed. comes out and the cycle starts again.

[Spiritchaser]

I’d like to see some more melee/debuff, melee control options.

Two or more attacks, primarily damage is by weapon, but with a focus on party protection.

At present this does exist, with EchK 3+/Ancestral Guardian3+ and sentinel you get a great single target controller/debuffer and with conquest Paladin you get a great multi target controller/debuffer. EK wizard or bladesmith wizard mixes can Possibly do this as well (though it’s often better to stay out of melee with these). You can also sort of get there with a tortle druid but there’s plenty of design space for more mechanics.

Make an arcane sword mage with a spell list that strongly favours those wonderful wizard control spells, and give them a reason to stay in melee.

Make a Ranger subclass with a weak but scalable summon capacity, and a secondary power to control foes adjacent to summons?

Make a monk with the capacity to generate walls/clouds/reflections?

There are probably no end of good ideas, and some of them would likely even balance out pretty well.

[EggKookoo]

A combat healer might be fun. Someone who generates healing/buffing based on damage output.

[Mikal]

It would be nice to finally have a subclass that can make two weapon fighting worth it.

Felt we were getting there with the Brute, but then it fell by the wayside.

[Asisreo1]

Blood Sorcerer. The concept is sooo good but it's clear as day how difficult the actual execution is.

[jojosskul]

I have mixed views on the arificer. On the one hand I hate it. On the other hand it has grown on me a bit and I mrely dislike it and believe it has no place in my games. I would be a lot more amenable to it if it had been more generic at first then Eberron subclasses were added that gave the magitech flavour. So an arificer based round scrolls, round runes or caligrapher's tools, round forging and using great weapons - something that is a bit easier to fit into different worlds. I guess I want a high level artificer to feel more like Sauron and less like Tony Stark.

I'm finally getting a chance to play artificer for the first time, and oddly that's the exact flavoring I went with. He has proficiency in calligrapher's tools which he uses to magically place runes on different objects to give them power. He places the runes on himself to represent his prepared spells for the day, and plans on going artillerest (horrible name but mechanically fits the theme) since they get proficiency in woodcarver's tools, so he's just placing the same runes a different way.

His cannons will be represented more as magical wellsprings of destructive or protective magic. I'm hoping that when Tasha's comes out and we get the "de-Eberonned" version of Artificer we get something like this as a suggestion flavorwise. It took a little work, but I'm very happy with the results and am excited to play them. It's even easier for the Alchemist to make them fit in a more traditional fantasy setting. Instead of thinking of them as "uses magic with the power of steampunk" I tend to think of them as "channels magic through objects" and it gave me more of a blank slate to work with.

[Millstone85]

Artificer

Archivist
Armorer

Cleric

Love Domain
Travel Domain

Druid

Circle of Plants
Circle of Swarms

Monk

Way of the Astral Self

Paladin

Oath of Balance
Oath of Freedom

Sorcerer:

Celestial Heritage
Clockwork Soul
Fey Ancestry
Fiendish Legacy
Sea Sorcery
Stone Sorcery
Sun Sorcery

Warlock

The Inevitable
The Vestige
The Wyrm

[Nalistri]

Moon Sorcerer currently playing a characer who is from the Gates of the moon

[Amnestic]

I'm finally getting a chance to play artificer for the first time, and oddly that's the exact flavoring I went with. He has proficiency in calligrapher's tools which he uses to magically place runes on different objects to give them power. He places the runes on himself to represent his prepared spells for the day, and plans on going artillerest (horrible name but mechanically fits the theme) since they get proficiency in woodcarver's tools, so he's just placing the same runes a different way.

His cannons will be represented more as magical wellsprings of destructive or protective magic. I'm hoping that when Tasha's comes out and we get the "de-Eberonned" version of Artificer we get something like this as a suggestion flavorwise. It took a little work, but I'm very happy with the results and am excited to play them. It's even easier for the Alchemist to make them fit in a more traditional fantasy setting. Instead of thinking of them as "uses magic with the power of steampunk" I tend to think of them as "channels magic through objects" and it gave me more of a blank slate to work with.

The Magic of Artifice sidebar in Rising of the Last War already says "fluff your spellcasting through tools however you like"


THE MAGIC OF ARTIFICE
As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you're using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist's supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker's tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds. When you cast poison spray, you could fling foul chemicals or use a wand that spits venom. The effect of the spell is the same as for a spellcaster of any other class, but your method of spellcasting is special. The same principle applies when you prepare your spells.

As an artificer, you don't study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you'll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with heat metal, you might be altering the device you use to heal-perhaps modifying a tool so that it channels heat instead of heal*ing energy. Such details don't limit you in any way or provide you with any benefit beyond the spell's effects. You don't have to justify how you're using tools to cast a spell. But de*scribing your spellcasting creatively is a fun way to distin*guish yourself from other spellcasters.

So it's kinda there already?

[zinycor]

I have mixed views on the arificer. On the one hand I hate it. On the other hand it has grown on me a bit and I mrely dislike it and believe it has no place in my games. I would be a lot more amenable to it if it had been more generic at first then Eberron subclasses were added that gave the magitech flavour. So an arificer based round scrolls, round runes or caligrapher's tools, round forging and using great weapons - something that is a bit easier to fit into different worlds. I guess I want a high level artificer to feel more like Sauron and less like Tony Stark.

I agree, an artificer version that was close to Sauron would be very nice and fitting on the standard DnD settings.

[Wildstag]

I'd really like to see a monk that gets armor proficiency and the ability to use Martial Arts while armored.

Alternatively, a bonded-armor fighter would be good. There was this set of old Dragon Magazine alternate class features for the Fighter that basically made them bond with a particular set of armor. While bonded, they got fun bonuses (fun, not necessarily strong).

At 1st level, they could get ignore encumbrance from armor and max-dex was improved by 1. At 4th, they could get evasion while lightly encumbered, but only from spells and magical effects. At 8th, they got to ignore don/doff speed and a scaling bonus to AC while wearing that suit of armor. At level 18 was the ACF that gave spell resistance equal to 11 + HD while wearing heavy or medium armor.

And weirdly, an ACF in the same article overlapped with the spell resistance ACF, and that gave Fortification 25%/75%/100% at the cost of the 10th/14th/18th level feats.

In 5e form, I could see the 3/7/10/15/18 breakdown being in order: lose stealth disadvantage and add +1 dex to heavy armor; add proficiency bonus to Dexterity saves against spell effects while armored; +1 AC while wearing bonded armor (increases at 15 and 18) and able to don/doff as a round/action; 50% chance for a critical hit to become a normal hit (can't overshine adamantine armor completely); Resistant to damage from spells or a way to become immune for a number of rounds per day equal to level (maybe?).

I'll admit, the 18th level one is hard to figure out. Maybe it'd work better as combining the one Paladin aura with the one Gnome feature that gives advantage on Int/Wis/Cha saves against spells? That could work. I'd call the archetype the "Eldritch Juggernaut" despite that being the name of the capstone feature in the 3.5 Dragon article. Its abilities would be magical in nature, and it'd make the Fighter basically chock full of passives, but it'd also allow the Fighter to focus on offensive feat options or fighting styles because the archetype will strengthen their defenses.

[Kyutaru]

Dragoon - Fighter

For some, jumping is an Athletics check.

For dragoons, it is a way of life.

[rlc]

A ranger that drives around a giant robot

[cutlery]

Dragoon - Fighter

For some, jumping is an Athletics check.

For dragoons, it is a way of life.

A short rest recharge jump or two that works like a round of blink would be pretty neat; have it boost crit range to 19-20 for a round when they land.

Increase the jump range from 10 to 20 then 30 feet later, and...uh. Something else for the later martial archetype features.

[Millstone85]

So it's kinda there already?More than kinda, and I think that previous posters have been unfair to RftLW's presentation of the class.

The artificer is someone who crafts and enchants items, and is in no way confined to the magitek aesthetic of Eberron.

[samcifer]

I loved, loved the Swordmage. That's what the Stone Sorcerer from UA was trying to be, but IMO it just doesn't fit on a d6 class. Super tough to put it on the Fighter, then, without stepping all over the EK. No idea how they'd get it done.

I do think the Monk needs an overall damage boost, that's why I want a Smite-style one. Something that can really nova. It'd likely solve the issue if they could get some more magic item support, some weapons designed specifically with unarmed strikes in mind. Its an immensely small list as to what can truly help a Monk offensively as far as magic items go. The issue I find, as a class, is that all other martial warrior classes (And some gishes, like Bladelocks) get an outright damage boost at level 11 or 12. For Rangers, this is based into their subclass. Paladins get Improved Divine Smite. Fighters get their third attack. Barbarians get... well, the ability to defy death to keep them fighting.

Monks? Their unarmed strikes go from a d6 to a d8. Assuming you've been using a weapon for your first two attacks in a row up to that point, you've already been doing a d8 via a quarterstaff or similar weapon. So for your unarmed strikes, you're now doing another 1 damage per attack on average. That's just... So sorely lacking.

EDIT: As far as damage boosting subclass, I think the closest we've seen is the Way of Mercy (What an ironic name, considering). It allows them to do a quasi-smite style attack once per turn, but you need to have incapacitated (Stunning Strike'd?) the target, or have them be poisoned. And any feature relying on Poison in 5E is just... Damn, design team, go back to the drawing board.

I tend to take 1 level of Hexblade warlock for the hexblade curse extra damage. It seems to help, but hurts the build overall otherwise, it seems, due to needing 13+ Charisma.

[Arkhios]

Reading up on this thread brought up an idea I've never had before: Astral Soul Sorcerer. Honestly not sure what it would be like, but the thought alone is quite intriguing.

Rage Mage Barbarian would be nice, but honestly, I'm kinda happy with my own 'brew (link below, in my signature). Even if I didn't get to play one myself, I'd be happy to let my players use it. You're of course free to peruse it as well.

Sacred Fist Monk. A monastic order with ties to a deity and divine magics.

Spellsword. As the old prestige class. A half-caster with spells from wizard's list specifically, with knightly orders. Not kuite Eldritch Knight but something between that and Bladesinger wizard, with a chassis more akin to paladin, ranger, and artificer. And no, artificer doesn't have the right feel either.

Warlord. An obvious answer from me. Again, I'm relatively happy with the one I brewed myself years ago, but I'd like to see an official one as well. Battle Master isn't that, neither is Banneret.

Paladin who bonds with a Domain as their Oath.

Rogue with extra attack. My Thug is an attempt to make something like that, with a twist, at the expense of reducing sneak attacks.

[jaappleton]

I tend to take 1 level of Hexblade warlock for the hexblade curse extra damage. It seems to help, but hurts the build overall otherwise, it seems, due to needing 13+ Charisma.

With Genie becoming official, its likely a better route than Hexblade since the +Prof Bonus damage is always on.

Still, its a solid idea and delays things only one level. Its not a bad route to go. Even so, compared to something like Lifedrinker or Improved Divine Smite, it pales in comparasin.

[Millstone85]

Reading up on this thread brought up an idea I've never had before: Astral Soul Sorcerer. Honestly not sure what it would be like, but the thought alone is quite intriguing.It could be about reincarnation and a character who experiences déjà vu whenever they learn a new spell, Torment-style.

[Tectorman]

One thing that I'd like to see in print is the Oath of Treachery for the Paladin (it appeared in a UA, but not yet a book).

I mean, I liked the general "trickster" nature of the subclass's class features, but what I really liked was the completely lack of any tenets whatsoever (not even a requirement to be treacherous). I just really want to play a Paladin of 3rd level or above without having that sort of thing hanging over my head.

[x3n0n]

I do think the Monk needs an overall damage boost, that's why I want a Smite-style one.
<Snip>
EDIT: As far as damage boosting subclass, I think the closest we've seen is the Way of Mercy (What an ironic name, considering). It allows them to do a quasi-smite style attack once per turn, but you need to have incapacitated (Stunning Strike'd?) the target, or have them be poisoned. And any feature relying on Poison in 5E is just... Damn, design team, go back to the drawing board.

Kensei offers some of this: Deft Strikes is a mini smite, and Sharpen the Blade is a significant damage boost at reasonable ki cost. Unfortunately, both are restricted to your kensei weapons, so you don't get the benefit on Flurry nor on your generic Martial Arts bonus attack.

Exploring Eberron's Way of the Living Weapon fills some of this gap, but it's not first-party content.

I will be curious to see how Way of Mercy ends up. In the UA version, I do think Stunning Strike (or teammate help) is where they expect most of the triple-smites to happen against BBEGs, and the poison aura can do good work in mobs of (non-immune) dorks.

[Fnissalot]

My current holes in the 5e design would probably be:
A barbarian with some level of active choices while playing similar to battlemaster/arcane archer etc. Call it the Path of the Hero or something, and you learn a few epic labors and can use them a number of times per rest. Give them value in other pillars than combat.

A unarmed fighter, some kind of pugilist who fights dirty and uses their fisticuffs.

Something that feels more like a fairytale witch or a dnd hag. I don't get the feeling of it from druids, wizards, or warlocks with their current subclasses. The artificer alchemist is probably the closest to fill this niche for me which feels off. The crows/cat and the cauldron, spell-book and rituals. So probably a wizard subclass focused on witchcraft, curses, potion-brewing, and out of combat healing?

A ranger that protects nature more than fights it or just is used to moving in it. You could call it a warden or something like that. Give it some defensive or tank abilities.

A rogue with some kind of divine magic, a religious con-artist if you may, who cheats the gods for their magic and carries multiple holy symbols. I made a homebrew sub-class for it a few years ago and I still think it is missing and would be fun to play.

Monks with animal stances; i want to go all crane on you and then pounce like a tiger and ... you get the idea.

There are lots of holes in the list of cleric domains; sleep/dreams, beauty/love, primal destruction, disease, earth/caverns/mountains, commerce/trading/economy/cities, anarchy/chaos etc.

The list is long...

[Tvtyrant]

Barbarian that changes bodies when they rage, specialty changes based on how many enemies there are. Gains DR=proficiency if the party is outnumbered by at least two to one and attacks are AoE (becomes visiblily larger and more godzilla like.) If party is tied for numbers or outnumber opponent becomes invisible to a single opponent for the length of the battle and deals extra damage to that enemy.

[Kurt Kurageous]

There's a lot of Homebrew which is really, really, really good. Like, absolutely superb. Incredibly well balanced, and should be acceptable in darn near any game.

However, there's unfortunately many DMs who even hear the word 'homebrew' and instantly don't even want to look at it. And given some of the content out there (Looking at you, D&D Wiki), I can't say I blame them. There's also many who aren't well versed enough in particular game mechanics as to be able to make a good judgement call as to what's pretty balanced and what is absolutely over the top.

While so much homebrew out there is absolutely stellar, getting the greenlight to use it at the table often comes with its own set of issues.

Its a DM self-confidence challenge. I'm pretty confident and accept homebrew and have even encouraged it AFTER I got to look it over. Don't you dare bring that stuff if I haven't.

That said, I especially loathe homebrew that add special mechanics to the game. Players don't seem to realize the DM needs to know everything nearly instantly, and your oh so special way of calculating stuff that is already represented in the rules is just infuriating.

[rlc]

Something that feels more like a fairytale witch or a dnd hag. I don't get the feeling of it from druids, wizards, or warlocks with their current subclasses. The artificer alchemist is probably the closest to fill this niche for me which feels off. The crows/cat and the cauldron, spell-book and rituals. So probably a wizard subclass focused on witchcraft, curses, potion-brewing, and out of combat healing?


This would've been perfect for the Tasha book, so I'm not sure if they really have anything like it planned. Shame, really.

[iTreeby]

I want incarnum subclasses. Totemist for ranger one for paladin and another for wizard. Essentially incarnum would be long rest swappable powers similar to warlock invocations that require a spell slot to be tied up to gain the effect.

Its similar in some ways to what the artificer does with infusions, you could only target yourself.

[Edea]

A flame sorc.

Not Draconic Bloodline, or even the Phoenix Soul UA. FIRE. Like, you're able to scorch things that are normally unscorchable (and what IS normally scorchable gets completely incinerated), you can use fire as an energy/life source, you're able to sculpt fire to an exceedingly fine degree and summon/turn into living flame, maybe an extrasensory ability like thermal sensitivity/"infrared" vision...the guy's answer to everything is 'Fire, but never forget. Just fire."

[cutlery]

One thing that I'd like to see in print is the Oath of Treachery for the Paladin (it appeared in a UA, but not yet a book).

I mean, I liked the general "trickster" nature of the subclass's class features, but what I really liked was the completely lack of any tenets whatsoever (not even a requirement to be treacherous). I just really want to play a Paladin of 3rd level or above without having that sort of thing hanging over my head.

I like the oath, as it goes, but "trickery" might have been a better name.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Fey Sorcerer, it should have been in the PHB along side draconic.

[jaappleton]

Fey Sorcerer, it should have been in the PHB along side draconic.

I think it’d be too close in concept to Fey Warlock.

That’s the justification they likely used while writing the PHB. However, that design philosophy has been proven to be utter bullhonkey, as we have:

Storm Sorcerer
Lightning Sorcerer
Tempest Cleric

Undead Warlock
Undying Warlock

There absolutely is room for a Fey Sorcerer. And IMO there should be one.

[Valmark]

Undead Warlock
Undying Warlock



I think these are fundamentally different at their core :p

[Luccan]

I think these are fundamentally different at their core :p

But they're definitely stepping on the same concept or serving an undead master. A Fey Sorcerer could choose to focus in on an aspect of the fey and still be distinct enough, especially since the Feylock can't decide if it wants to do teleports or charms. Besides which, there's an odd lack of an enchantment/illusion based Sorcerer. You could do something like the Divine Soul and open up the Bard list for their selection.

[Valmark]

But they're definitely stepping on the same concept or serving an undead master.

Oh, sorry- I meant that as a joke, not as a serious objection.

[Luccan]

Oh, sorry- I meant that as a joke, not as a serious objection.

That makes sense, but it's not entirely wrong so I wasn't sure. They're pretty distinct mechanically

[Edea]

Oh, sorry- I meant that as a joke, not as a serious objection.

I found out upon returning here after a long hiatus that it's common to highlight text of that nature using this font color.

[Lycurgon]

Here are some I would like to see. Some are reworks of material from older editions.

Shadowdancer Rogue have darkness and mobility based powers.

Tattooed Monk with a list of Magic tattoos to choose from.

Were-blood Barbarian that can choose a were beast type and get hybrid form transformations when they rage.

Warden Barbarian - combining the 4e class with Barbarian by using plants and Earth based powers to control and limit movement around them.

Rune Scarred Barbarian - Less a Rage Mage and more someone with a selection of magical runes that give different magical buffs and effects they can active as bonus actions whether raging or not.

Dragon Patron Warlock - possibly based on the Dragon Shaman from 3.5e with auras.

Earth Domain Cleric

Fire Domain Cleric

Darkness Domain Cleric

[EggKookoo]

I found out upon returning here after a long hiatus that it's common to highlight text of that nature using this font color.

Is that some sort of joke?

[jaappleton]

I want to see if I'm alone in this mentality:

Mechanically, I have a very serious problem with Rogue. Let me start by saying that I love the vanilla features of the base class. Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Reliable Talent, Expertise, what's not to love there? Sneak attack is also a solid way to contribute damage without the need to heavily invest in feats, or magic weapons.

My issue with it is the subclass features. Specifically, how far apart they're spread out. You get your first subclass feature at 3. Fine, many classes are this way, no issue there. But then your next feature doesn't come until 9th level.

So many others get their next feature at 6 or 7. They have to wait until level 9. And even then, its usually far from a build defining feature. Assassin in particular is quite bad, Infiltration Expertise is absolutely terrible as a feature. So they really have to wait until level 13 for their next good feature. Ten levels. TEN LEVELS to wait.

Its.... very frustrating.

Personally I think Evasion should've been pushed to 9th level, and their second subclass feature moved to 7th. Some of those 7th level features will always suck, like Assassin, but features like Panache can be pretty important.

[cutlery]

I found out upon returning here after a long hiatus that it's common to highlight text of that nature using this font color.

I've never been fond of directly calling out sarcasm. I like knowing who can detect it and who can't.

[jaappleton]

I've never been fond of directly calling out sarcasm. I like knowing who can detect it and who can't.

With text, its often not as obvious. Many people have difficulty conveying tone from text. Myself, I think that I have undiagnosed Asperger's, as two of my children are also on the spectrum, so I try to highlight what many would consider to be the obvious snark in blue.

It also helps me identify something that will likely make me smirk, so I look forward to the blue text whenever I see it in a post. :smallbiggrin:

[EggKookoo]

With text, its often not as obvious. Many people have difficulty conveying tone from text.

That's why I always assume everything is sarcasm. And... I always assume everything is sarcasm.

[MrStabby]

I think it’d be too close in concept to Fey Warlock.

That’s the justification they likely used while writing the PHB. However, that design philosophy has been proven to be utter bullhonkey, as we have:

Storm Sorcerer
Lightning Sorcerer
Tempest Cleric

Undead Warlock
Undying Warlock

There absolutely is room for a Fey Sorcerer. And IMO there should be one.

I would prefer it if there were some alternative rules (optional) for creating these. So there is a storm themed spelllist - you want astorm sorcerer or tempest cleric you have a "domain" list to swap in, you want a fey paladin, ranger or druid - swap in that list. With some lists for each element, patrons etc you gould go a long way with a modest amound of new content.

[Dienekes]

I want to see if I'm alone in this mentality:

Mechanically, I have a very serious problem with Rogue. Let me start by saying that I love the vanilla features of the base class. Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Reliable Talent, Expertise, what's not to love there? Sneak attack is also a solid way to contribute damage without the need to heavily invest in feats, or magic weapons.

My issue with it is the subclass features. Specifically, how far apart they're spread out. You get your first subclass feature at 3. Fine, many classes are this way, no issue there. But then your next feature doesn't come until 9th level.


I have a similar criticism to you. I don’t think there should be more than a 5 level gap between subclass features pretty much ever, and 4 is a much better number. It allows an ability to show up fairly early every tier of play to help define how the character should be played. Gives something unique to the player every few levels. And helps mitigate the long stretches of mediocrity that many martials have at the tail end of their class. No more getting your final cool feature at 14 for Barbarians and waiting for 20 to get something relevant again.

[stoutstien]

I want to see if I'm alone in this mentality:

Mechanically, I have a very serious problem with Rogue. Let me start by saying that I love the vanilla features of the base class. Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Reliable Talent, Expertise, what's not to love there? Sneak attack is also a solid way to contribute damage without the need to heavily invest in feats, or magic weapons.

My issue with it is the subclass features. Specifically, how far apart they're spread out. You get your first subclass feature at 3. Fine, many classes are this way, no issue there. But then your next feature doesn't come until 9th level.

So many others get their next feature at 6 or 7. They have to wait until level 9. And even then, its usually far from a build defining feature. Assassin in particular is quite bad, Infiltration Expertise is absolutely terrible as a feature. So they really have to wait until level 13 for their next good feature. Ten levels. TEN LEVELS to wait.

Its.... very frustrating.

Personally I think Evasion should've been pushed to 9th level, and their second subclass feature moved to 7th. Some of those 7th level features will always suck, like Assassin, but features like Panache can be pretty important.

Not necessarily a subclass feature but they do get that extra ASI/feat which in ways is better because it's more flexible and personal.

[Habber_Dasher]

Some subclasses I would like to see and coincidentally have started homebrews for that I may or may not finish.

Swarm Druid: I know we're probably getting swarm keeper ranger, but I want to be able to turn into a swarm of insects. Would probably work better as a unique stat block that you can flavor how you want then the existing swarms in the monster manual. Can do things like squeeze through small spaces, occupy enemy spaces to debuff/ damage them, and send individual members of your swarm off to scout or communicate.

Psionic Barbarian: Here me out. A psionic gaining extreme power when they get angry or loose control is a pretty common troupe. Think Eleven from Stranger Things. How cool would it be to fling around enemies and objects like ragdolls when you enter rage?

Ancestor Domain: Basically a shaman. When I think of a shaman I want a class that can summon/communicate with spirits, heal allies, and curse enemies. I think the base cleric is closest to this.

Thug Rogue: Has an expanded range of weapons it can sneak attack with including improvised weapons, clubs, and maybe unarmed strikes. Play style encourages shoving and grappling.

[Amechra]

I want to see if I'm alone in this mentality:

Mechanically, I have a very serious problem with Rogue. Let me start by saying that I love the vanilla features of the base class. Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Reliable Talent, Expertise, what's not to love there? Sneak attack is also a solid way to contribute damage without the need to heavily invest in feats, or magic weapons.

My issue with it is the subclass features. Specifically, how far apart they're spread out. You get your first subclass feature at 3. Fine, many classes are this way, no issue there. But then your next feature doesn't come until 9th level.

So many others get their next feature at 6 or 7. They have to wait until level 9. And even then, its usually far from a build defining feature. Assassin in particular is quite bad, Infiltration Expertise is absolutely terrible as a feature. So they really have to wait until level 13 for their next good feature. Ten levels. TEN LEVELS to wait.

Its.... very frustrating.

Personally I think Evasion should've been pushed to 9th level, and their second subclass feature moved to 7th. Some of those 7th level features will always suck, like Assassin, but features like Panache can be pretty important.

I am similarly frustrated with the Bard, who only gets three subclass features (because Magical Secrets fills the 10th and 18th level slots where they might otherwise get something).

I'd honestly stick their subclass feature right next to Expertise at 6th level. Sure, that might force the feature to be a ribbon... but pretty much all of the 9th level Rogue features are effectively ribbons, so why not? Seriously, you have such sterling features as:

• Get Advantage on some skill checks while moving slowly!
• You're alright at infiltration!
• You have +10ft movement! This might not seem minor, but come on - Barbarians literally get this feature next to Extra Attack, and no one has ever complained about Barbarian 5 being overloaded.
• People are more likely to have strong opinions about you!
• You can read people a bit better than you could before!
• Your spells that require a saving throw are mildly better if you hide first!

OK, that last one might be good if you build for it... but in that case, why not get it sooner?

EDIT: Oh, right, actual subclasses.

I kinda want some good guidelines on building your own setting-specific Domains, Sorcerous Origins, and Patrons. Domains is really the big one - right now, there are some pretty obvious Cleric concepts that don't have clear Domain choices. I would want there to be a Harvest/Seasons Domain and a Sea Domain at the very least. Alternatively, I would have preferred it if they had scrapped Domains and focused more on your style of holiness. Are you a Holy Warrior? A Preacher? A Mendicant? A Religious Scholar? A Shaman?

I also want to see some more cross-pollination between Sorcerers and Warlocks. Right now, you have the weird situation where Sorcerers are your go-to class for people with inherited power... unless you've inherited it from Fey or
Fiends, in which case you want to go with the Warlock. It'd be cool if there each "Being of Power" had subclasses for both Sorcerers and Warlocks.

[MrStabby]

I want to see if I'm alone in this mentality:

Mechanically, I have a very serious problem with Rogue. Let me start by saying that I love the vanilla features of the base class. Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Reliable Talent, Expertise, what's not to love there? Sneak attack is also a solid way to contribute damage without the need to heavily invest in feats, or magic weapons.

My issue with it is the subclass features. Specifically, how far apart they're spread out. You get your first subclass feature at 3. Fine, many classes are this way, no issue there. But then your next feature doesn't come until 9th level.

So many others get their next feature at 6 or 7. They have to wait until level 9. And even then, its usually far from a build defining feature. Assassin in particular is quite bad, Infiltration Expertise is absolutely terrible as a feature. So they really have to wait until level 13 for their next good feature. Ten levels. TEN LEVELS to wait.

Its.... very frustrating.

Personally I think Evasion should've been pushed to 9th level, and their second subclass feature moved to 7th. Some of those 7th level features will always suck, like Assassin, but features like Panache can be pretty important.


I think rogue is in many ways a near perfectly designed class, in a game where all the other design errors make it less of a pleasure to play.

Generally I would agree with you but I don't think it is limited to rogue. I would generally like subclasses to play a greater role in characters and less to comefrom the main class. As it is, all barbarians kind of feel the same (ok maybe ancestral is a little different), all monks are using their mobility to pick targets and stun them, all wizards feel like they are the same list of the best spells (oh wow! you picked shield and polymorph and misty step and counterspell - how wonderfully original of you) with some minor subclass adjustments. Pushing the subclass more would have been a good thing.

That said, I think the differentiation on the rogue is better than most. Arcane trickster spellcasting has a big impact on play and getting mage hand fits well and promotes a more int focussed character. Swashbuckler promotes high charisma and enables beter melee options. Assasin promotes rolling up a new character when you realise assassinate doesnt work as you hope it did and so on. For all the fewer subclass abilities I feel that different rogues are actually more distinct than say a samurai archer and a champion archer. I guess a lot of it comes downto thedistinctions being on abilities you might use every turn rather than once per day.

[Petrocorus]

- I want a Sha'Ir. I loved the class in 3.5. Apparently it's coming with Tasha's.

- I certainly would like to see more subclasses using the maneuvers mechanics. Notably a Ranger subclass.

- I'd like to see a Wizard subclass who focus on cantrips. Notably on getting more of them.

- I'd also like a 1/3 divine caster for the Monk.


The ranger has lots of issues - focusing on a non-combat pillar a little more than other classes, trying to do combat/skills/casting and ending up being mediocre at all of them. Basically it's require a complete rework, probably with subclasses focusing on the various things ranger could be rather than trying to make base ranger so...jumbled. But fixing ranger seems to be difficult, given how frequently they've had to take a stab at it, and I'll admit it seems like a hard class to build properly without it just looking like a reflavored paladin.

I agree the Ranger needs a complete reworks.
Though the Class Features Variants UA has finally gone the right way to make the class able to do its jobs.
After how many atemps?


Dragoon - Fighter

For some, jumping is an Athletics check.

For dragoons, it is a way of life.
I'm confused. AFAIK, the dragoons is a kind of cavalry unit. What does it have to do with jumping?




Spellsword. As the old prestige class. A half-caster with spells from wizard's list specifically, with knightly orders. Not kuite Eldritch Knight but something between that and Bladesinger wizard, with a chassis more akin to paladin, ranger, and artificer. And no, artificer doesn't have the right feel either.

I'd like to add the Suel Arcanamach and the Knight of the Weave too.

But i believe the EK could be used to implement this concept if it had more freedom in the spell selection.

The 5E EK looks more like a Duskblade to me than to an Eldritch Knight.

Though i still think some of the 3.5 PrC could be implemented to some degree with some kind of prestige feats.




Warlord. An obvious answer from me. Again, I'm relatively happy with the one I brewed myself years ago, but I'd like to see an official one as well. Battle Master isn't that, neither is Banneret.
If the Warlord is what i think (i never played 4E), then i believe this is what they tried to do with the Banneret, quite poorly.

[jaappleton]

For Dragoon, I think they were referring to the Final Fantasy style Dragoon.

For the Warlord, the closest I’ve seen is the Dirge Singer Bard from Exploring Eberron. Not official, I know. And while the Warlord of 4E was exclusively Martial, with no magic, the Dirge Singer certainly captures the feeling by granting extra attacks to allies.

Even still, I’d love a true Warlord. I think it can be accomplished with Fighter, and focus on giving allies all your attacks. I’d absolutely love to play one.

[Valmark]

I'm confused. AFAIK, the dragoons is a kind of cavalry unit. What does it have to do with jumping?


Clearly it's a rampaging horse!

In all seriousness, in the final fantasy games the Dragoon is a kind of character that jumps, then slams down dealing damage. Usually untouchable when in the air, depending on the game.

Speaking of which, I'm fairly sure Ramsus has a slew of homebrews for 5e of FF stuff. Unsure if the dragoon's in there.

[Dienekes]

I'm confused. AFAIK, the dragoons is a kind of cavalry unit. What does it have to do with jumping?



Yeah I was confused by this a few weeks back now. Apparently the Final Fantasy games have no idea what a Dragoon is, and just used the name for jumping fighters. And now the name has stuck.

I will admit, the history lover in me is fairly annoyed by this. But what are you going to do? Try to get the people of Square Enix to change the name to "Hopping Morons"? It won't work. I've tried and now they are screening my calls.


For Dragoon, I think they were referring to the Final Fantasy style Dragoon.

For the Warlord, the closest I’ve seen is the Dirge Singer Bard from Exploring Eberron. Not official, I know. And while the Warlord of 4E was exclusively Martial, with no magic, the Dirge Singer certainly captures the feeling by granting extra attacks to allies.

Even still, I’d love a true Warlord. I think it can be accomplished with Fighter, and focus on giving allies all your attacks. I’d absolutely love to play one.

If we're going with unofficial stuff, this is the best Warlord I've seen: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/gv6fya/warlord_v14_lead_the_charge_as_a_stalwart_paragon/

To be honest, I've found a lot of this particular poster's stuff more interesting and balanced than a lot of the WotC stuff.

[Petrocorus]

For the sake of the discussion, can someone sum up what a Warlord was doing in 4E?

Is it a martial that gives bonuses to is allies? Like the 3.5 Marshall?
Did he also give bonus attacks? Heal them?

I'm wondering if it could be implemented with a Valor Bard?



If we're going with unofficial stuff, this is the best Warlord I've seen: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/gv6fya/warlord_v14_lead_the_charge_as_a_stalwart_paragon/

This make me think, does someone know a tool / website helping format stuff like the PHB, with the same table style, etc. I notice this Warlord PDF is formated like this.

[Luccan]

For the sake of the discussion, can someone sum up what a Warlord was doing in 4E?

Is it a martial that gives bonuses to is allies? Like the 3.5 Marshall?
Did he also give bonus attacks? Heal them?

I'm wondering if it could be implemented with a Valor Bard?

I didn't play 4e, but from what I can gather it's a non-magical support warrior. Different from the Marshall in being significantly more active and relevant in actual combat, kind of a warrior-tactician class.

Edit: And I think trying to do it with a spellcaster misses part of the point; it seems it was tactically and mechanically interesting without resorting to magic and that's part of what people liked

[Amechra]

For the sake of the discussion, can someone sum up what a Warlord was doing in 4E?

Is it a martial that gives bonuses to is allies? Like the 3.5 Marshall?
Did he also give bonus attacks? Heal them?

I'm wondering if it could be implemented with a Valor Bard?

So, 4e split classes into four roles, and Leaders were the "support" role.

A Warlord was the martial leader class. It could heal people by yelling at them, handed out bonus attacks all the time, and gave out all kinds of bonuses. Here's the handbook, if you want a bit more of an in-depth look at it. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?458937-Rescued-from-WotC-Chasing-Glory-The-Warlord-Handbook)

In 5e terms, it'd be kinda like a cross between a Valor Bard, a less "selfish" Battle Master, and an Order Cleric. Part of the issue is that 5e is incredibly hostile to party buffs, in a way that 3.5 (where you had stuff like the Bard, the Marshal. and good ol' White Raven) and 4e weren't.

The big difference is that it was active. You didn't just set up your aura and go on with your life - most of your effects were riders on attacks. Well, other than Lazylord builds, who replaced their own basic attacks with the ability to let other allies make theirs.


This make me think, does someone know a tool / website helping format stuff like the PHB, with the same table style, etc. I notice this Warlord PDF is formated like this.

You want Homebrewery (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com).

[Edea]

I also kind-of want the core monk, ranger and sorcerer fixed before trying to get more sub-classes made for them, but WotC won't do that and it's frustrating.

I dislike trying to patch core chassis problems with power-creeped archetypes. It's like trying to fix a flat-tire by putting duct-tape over the rip; just replace the tire.

[Petrocorus]

Edit: And I think trying to do it with a spellcaster misses part of the point; it seems it was tactically and mechanically interesting without resorting to magic and that's part of what people liked
Right, my bad.
Though i was mostly thinking about the way the Valor Bard use his Inspiration Dice.


So, 4e split classes into four roles, and Leaders were the "support" role.

A Warlord was the martial leader class. It could heal people by yelling at them, handed out bonus attacks all the time, and gave out all kinds of bonuses. Here's the handbook, if you want a bit more of an in-depth look at it. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?458937-Rescued-from-WotC-Chasing-Glory-The-Warlord-Handbook)

In 5e terms, it'd be kinda like a cross between a Valor Bard, a less "selfish" Battle Master, and an Order Cleric. Part of the issue is that 5e is incredibly hostile to party buffs, in a way that 3.5 (where you had stuff like the Bard, the Marshal. and good ol' White Raven) and 4e weren't.

The big difference is that it was active. You didn't just set up your aura and go on with your life - most of your effects were riders on attacks. Well, other than Lazylord builds, who replaced their own basic attacks with the ability to let other allies make theirs.

Thank you.
I was indeed thinking to the 3.5 Crusader too. I do tend to miss the Tome of Battle.
It also reminds me of the PC Gideon in SW Imperial Assault, who, with XP, can become capable to give a bonus activation to the party.



You want Homebrewery (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com).
Thank you some much.
I had tumbled onto something like this years ago, on a fan-made version of Eberron (before the WGE), and i was foolish enough not to bookmark it or even remember the name.


I also kind-of want the core monk, ranger and sorcerer fixed before trying to get more sub-classes made for them, but WotC won't do that and it's frustrating.

I dislike trying to patch core chassis problems with power-creeped archetypes. It's like trying to fix a flat-tire by putting duct-tape over the rip; just replace the tire.
Agreed.
Though i don't think the Monk and the Sorcerer need that much work, IMHO.
Monk needs a better damage dice, and to get ki-empowered strike earlier.
Sorcerer needs more spell known and a wider spell list.

OTOH, there is also some work to be done on the Warlock.

[Arkhios]

Right, my bad.
Though i was mostly thinking about the way the Valor Bard use his Inspiration Dice.

I started my Warlord homebrewing by mixing battle master and valor bard, specifically combining maneuvers and bardic inspiration into a single pool which the warlord could then share with his allies (or use by themselves), along with several core ideas from 4e Warlord (obviously) and later adding a bit of my own design as well.

[cutlery]

Yeah I was confused by this a few weeks back now. Apparently the Final Fantasy games have no idea what a Dragoon is, and just used the name for jumping fighters. And now the name has stuck.

I will admit, the history lover in me is fairly annoyed by this. But what are you going to do? Try to get the people of Square Enix to change the name to "Hopping Morons"? It won't work. I've tried and now they are screening my calls.


They used that word (or, more specifically, translated the english localized version to that word) as early as 1991 - so, it's been around for awhile.

The original name was Soujutsushi; or "spear man".

It developed from there to dragon knight in the fluff in FF II (which wasn't released in the US until later than IV) they were dragon riders and not a playable job; the jumping has something to do with their mounts (thus, a form of cavalry). The mechanics or crunchy part was they were off screen for a round then landed and did double damage. Riding the mount in combat wouldn't have worked well, hence the jumping to stand in for a charge.

Blame the translators if you like; but it's been around for some time.

I think a variant of the blink mechanic would work better in 5e; you'd have to worry less about pesky ceilings.

[jaappleton]

The Warlord was so cool in concept, especially the Lazylord.

With the Lazylord, you rarely if ever actually attacked. Instead you used all your actions to grant extra, bonus attacks to your allies, and often empowering them to be more than standard attacks.

So you could go an entire combat encounter without actually lifting your weapon, but instead causing round after round of extra bonus attacks from your allies.

[Arkhios]

The Warlord was so cool in concept, especially the Lazylord.

With the Lazylord, you rarely if ever actually attacked. Instead you used all your actions to grant extra, bonus attacks to your allies, and often empowering them to be more than standard attacks.

So you could go an entire combat encounter without actually lifting your weapon, but instead causing round after round of extra bonus attacks from your allies.

While all true, there was a downside to warlords as well. Many people perceived warlords, or their players, as "chessmasters" who try to take control of other players' characters. And that, to be honest — especially as one who liked warlord a lot — I find really lame and wouldn't want to see carried forward to 5e.

[Grey Watcher]

I'd also like to see some better support for unarmed specialists for the various Martial classes. Adding an unarming Fighting Style helps a lot, certainly, but I wonder if it'd still be better served by having a dedicated subclass. Yeah, there's always multiclassing to Monk, but I feel like you get too many of the wuxia/magical kung fu types of powers to make it feel right. A feral Barbarian who is too savage to use even a club (eg Ayla from Chrono Trigger). A Fighter who is basically a boxer or a wrestler, no magical frills, just unbelievably tough (Halfing Fighter (boxer archetype) = Little Mac from Punch Out). An unarmed Paladin for when you just want to be Superman.

[jaappleton]

While all true, there was a downside to warlords as well. Many people perceived warlords, or their players, as "chessmasters" who try to take control of other players' characters. And that, to be honest — especially as one who liked warlord a lot — I find really lame and wouldn't want to see carried forward to 5e.

An incredibly fair point.

There’s no doubt 4E’s combat style leaned much more toward grid oriented combat as opposed to theater of the mind. I think that played a lot into what you’re saying.

5E is much more open concept, at least at my table. We use TotM pretty much exclusively, and I think that if they revisited the Warlord with that in mind, they could do quite a lot with it.

Also, wording would be super important. If you can only allow allies to make melee attacks but the party Rogue uses a bow, that’s going to play into things quite a bit.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think rogue is in many ways a near perfectly designed class, in a game where all the other design errors make it less of a pleasure to play. I agree; the skill monkey role is very useful in a game where all three pillars are present, and/or when the party actually has to scout in order not to get ambushed or fall into traps.
Likewise "need to remove traps" as a skill seems to be a lost art. The Salt Marsh adventures have quite a bit of that built into the adventures, which I appreciate.

[Luccan]

While all true, there was a downside to warlords as well. Many people perceived warlords, or their players, as "chessmasters" who try to take control of other players' characters. And that, to be honest — especially as one who liked warlord a lot — I find really lame and wouldn't want to see carried forward to 5e.

I think this just requires above game discussion. Theoretically there shouldn't be an issue with granting an extra attack to your barbarian or helping you rogue move to cover before their turn starts. The issue I could see is if you actually dictate the action, forcing the barbarian to attack a specific foe even if there are several options or the rogue to move to a specific space. That seems like an issue, but still one you can account for (and not one that's required to be present at all)

[Tanarii]

Barbarian: primal rager. 4e Rages were amazing. We need something like that again.

Cleric: Sea and Earth domains.

Druid: Animal Companion based sub-class. Shepherd tried to be this, but summons aren't the same thing.

Fighter: Sword Mage. Teleporting interceptor and Aegis-marking defender. (Primary defender with Int secondary belongs on the Fighter chassis.)

Ranger: Warden. 4e wardens with Forms were amazing. We need something like that again.

[Arkhios]

I think this just requires above game discussion. Theoretically there shouldn't be an issue with granting an extra attack to your barbarian or helping you rogue move to cover before their turn starts. The issue I could see is if you actually dictate the action, forcing the barbarian to attack a specific foe even if there are several options or the rogue to move to a specific space. That seems like an issue, but still one you can account for (and not one that's required to be present at all)

When I played mine (Eladrin Tactical Warlord), I usually asked (out-of-character) my fellow players which one of my available tactics they'd want at the moment. Not because I didn't know what to do, but because I didn't want to dictate their actions too much. I only provided the means and they got to decide which one to use.

As tactical combat oriented as it was, 4e D&D was still about teamwork. Even though players may discuss tactics on the fly, the characters don't perceive the world the same way. In-character, it was the warlord making the calls, even though out-of-character wasn't.

[Tanarii]

When I played mine (Eladrin Tactical Warlord), I usually asked (out-of-character) my fellow players which one of my available tactics they'd want at the moment. Not because I didn't know what to do, but because I didn't want to dictate their actions too much. I only provided the means and they got to decide which one to use.

As tactical combat oriented as it was, 4e D&D was still about teamwork. Even though players may discuss tactics on the fly, the characters don't perceive the world the same way. In-character, it was the warlord making the calls, even though out-of-character wasn't.Different table have different comfort levels with players discussing combat options out of character.

[Sam113097]

I recently came across the abandoned Unearthed Arcana Rune Scribe prestige class, and it seemed really interesting to me; I know that prestige classes as a concept are not a part of 5e, but I feel like it might be a fun subclass- perhaps for the Artificer? It seems like it would function well flavor-wise in settings that the artificer doesn't normally fit into all that well.

[MrStabby]

I recently came across the abandoned Unearthed Arcana Rune Scribe prestige class, and it seemed really interesting to me; I know that prestige classes as a concept are not a part of 5e, but I feel like it might be a fun subclass- perhaps for the Artificer? It seems like it would function well flavor-wise in settings that the artificer doesn't normally fit into all that well.

Yeah, cool concept. I didnt really find so much exciting in the execution though. I guess I would prefer them to revisit this than psion, but arguably they did so with the artificer and the rune knight.

[Temperjoke]

I recently came across the abandoned Unearthed Arcana Rune Scribe prestige class, and it seemed really interesting to me; I know that prestige classes as a concept are not a part of 5e, but I feel like it might be a fun subclass- perhaps for the Artificer? It seems like it would function well flavor-wise in settings that the artificer doesn't normally fit into all that well.


Yeah, cool concept. I didnt really find so much exciting in the execution though. I guess I would prefer them to revisit this than psion, but arguably they did so with the artificer and the rune knight.

Yeah they took pieces from that old UA and actually put them into the Storm King's Thunder adventure, and concepts into artificers and their infusions. I sort of liked the whole rune idea, but I think it needed a lot more setup and world building for something like that. Plus, if I recall, it involved more work outside of combat to set up stuff than what was used during combat, which is the reverse of the other classes.

EDIT: On a side note, I enjoyed the Onomancer wizard subclass UA, and I hope they continue with that subclass, maybe with a few adjustments.

[AliasBot]

Way of the Monkey King Monk. (Or would that be Way of the Immortal Sage?) In practice, probably looks a lot like the "wild shape Monk" that other people have suggested, given how much mechanical space transformation features tend to take up, but this is an "emulate a specific fictional character" subclass in concept.

A Pact Magic 1/3-caster Monk? Not sure what this would look like flavorfully, especially given the potential for overlap with the Way of Shadow's "Monk with darkness-related magic" concept, but using the other short rest-based class as the basis for a caster-Monk makes a lot of sense mechanically.

Circle of Monsters Druid: mostly about being able to transform into a wider variety of stuff than beasts, adding access to Monstrosities for Wild Shape and Polymorph, possibly as well as offering a choice between other monster types at a later level (Fiends, Aberrations, Celestials, etc).

Circle of the Unfathomable Druid: basically the Druid equivalent of a GOO-Lock, with the 'land' the Druid draws its power from being the utterly alien landscape of the Far Realms. Probably wants to be a debuffer/battlefield controller mechanically?

Genius Loci Warlock: a Warlock that draws power from a place - an ancient library, a city of millions, a massive mountain, or some other location you can witness and feel the power in it. In my head, this looks kind of like Worm's Labyrinth; when they use their magic, the area around them takes on the appearance and characteristics of their patron location...I'm explaining this poorly, but there's a really cool concept in here somewhere.

Primal Sorcerer: like a Divine Soul Sorcerer, but for Druids instead of Clerics - a Sorcerer with an innate connection to the raw power of nature.

Stitcher Artificer. Is Frankenstein a good thematic fit for most D&D worlds? No. Do I want a "build your own undead abomination" Artificer anyway? Yes.

Revelry Domain Cleric. This one feels pretty self-explanatory.

I'll also second the desire for a divine Bard and a nature spirit Warlock, and...fourth? Fifth? The desire for a Dragon Warlock.

[Edea]

I'll also second the desire for a divine Bard and a nature spirit Warlock, and...fourth? Fifth? The desire for a Dragon Warlock.

Unfortunately the language used for the Draconic Bloodline blurb probably killed that one (which is infuriating).

[T.G. Oskar]

I'd like to see refurbishes of old 3.x Prestige Classes (and maybe even some 4e Prestige Paths), particularly those that provide new ways to play with the class. For example:

Barbarian Path of the Tempest: Focusing on Dexterity rather than Strength, and the use of two weapons instead of a large one. Features would include the Two-Weapon Fighting style, a modification to Rage that grants the damage bonus when using DEX for attack and damage rolls, Dash as a bonus action, and a variant of Whirlwind Attack.
Barbarian Path of the Dreadnaught: Focusing on wearing heavy armor, unarmed strikes and mobility. Embody the idea of the "Unstoppable Force".
Bardic College of Muses: Focusing on providing buffs to all allies. Features would include Guidance as a free cantrip, the ability to use Bless as a 1st-level spell by spending 1 use of Bardic Inspiration, and use your Bardic Inspiration die when spending 2 uses at once; use the Help action at 30 ft., and eventually keep either Guidance or Bless as a non-concentration effect by spending Bardic Inspiration. (Yes, it's basically returning to the 3.5 Bard, which would make this subclass pretty OP.)
Way of the Wrestler: Focusing on maximizing the potential of the Grapple action.
Oath of the Shining Blade: Focusing on lightning, radiant and thunder damage, while making the Paladin a bit more of a gish. Features include adding spells that deal lightning, radiant or thunder damage to the paladin in addition to smite spells and spells that enhance weapons, aura that grants resistance to lightning, radiant and/or thunder damage, and a capstone that's similar in tune to Oath of Ancients.
Chirurgeon Roguish Archetype: Focusing on mundane healing and taking advantage of anatomy. Features would include using a healer's kit to allow allies to use their Hit Dice in battle, extra poison damage, and eventually a surgery that can potentially revive a recently fallen ally.
Master Thrower Roguish Archetype: Focusing on throwing weapons to maximum effectiveness. Features include allowing most simple weapons to become thrown weapons, making "feints" that grant the Rogue advantage on its next attack roll, trick shots that would allow ranged shoves, and eventually the ability to make a crit on a nat 19 with certain weapons.
Thug Roguish Archetype: Focusing on Strength and intimidation. Features include proficiency with most martial weapons and medium armor, imposing the Frightened condition with Cunning Action (provided they succeed on a save), and make Sneak Attacks with STR-based weapons like longswords (i.e., as long as they're not heavy or two-handed).

[Amechra]

Unfortunately the language used for the Draconic Bloodline blurb probably killed that one (which is infuriating).

And this is why Patrons should be usable as Origins, and vice-versa.

[Millstone85]

Unfortunately the language used for the Draconic Bloodline blurb probably killed that one (which is infuriating).Probably, although Wild Magic got a similar blurb about being "blessed by a powerful fey creature or marked by a demon" and that did not stop the Archfey and the Fiend from being patrons.

Sigh, these two classes are just plain too close thematically.


And this is why Patrons should be usable as Origins, and vice-versa.Hmm, I wonder if Ancestral Pact would work as a sorcerous origin.

[Amechra]

Probably, although Wild Magic got a similar blurb about being "blessed by a powerful fey creature or marked by a demon" and that did not stop the Archfey and the Fiend from being patrons.

Sigh, these two classes are just plain too close thematically.

I'm still of the opinion that they should've just been one class to begin with for exactly that reason. You could cover the a lot of what the Sorcerer does thematically by just having a Pact of the Blood boon that reflects your body being inhuman/magical.


Hmm, I wonder if Ancestral Pact would work as a sorcerous origin.

No reason why it wouldn't.

[Amnestic]

If they're not going to give me a full on Dragonfire Adept class (and it's highly unlikely they will) they can at least give me a Draconic Warlock >:(

[Joe the Rat]

Historic Dragoons were Mounted Infantry. That's a hard archetype to create when it's the default mount usage for most characters.
A Mobile or Leaping/Charging Fighter or Paladin, however, could be worthwhile.

One of my "when I have the time" projects is to cook up Dragon Archetypes for each class (Besides Sorcerer). Dragon Fury Barb, Wyrm Circle Druid, Dragonfire Patron, Variant on a Dragon Shaman Paladin, Dracolexi Bard, etc.



Warlock: The idea here is ripping off the Ur-Priest. A particular deity is your (unwilling unknowing) patron who you're stealing your magic from. Your patron spells are a particular domain's spells, you can snipe additional cleric spells via invocations/patron abilities...maybe you can pick a Holy Symbol for your Pact Boon that lets you steal enough divine power for Channel Divinity esque abilities, invocations to steal particular domain powers (or maybe even some equivalent to Divine Intervention).
The meat of Celestial gets much of the function, you just need to apply the GOO-Azathoth Pact flavor (You are stealing from the Patron(s)). That said, I 100% support a separate defined Ur-Priest Pact and/or Cleric Domain.


A flame sorc.

Not Draconic Bloodline, or even the Phoenix Soul UA. FIRE. Like, you're able to scorch things that are normally unscorchable (and what IS normally scorchable gets completely incinerated), you can use fire as an energy/life source, you're able to sculpt fire to an exceedingly fine degree and summon/turn into living flame, maybe an extrasensory ability like thermal sensitivity/"infrared" vision...the guy's answer to everything is 'Fire, but never forget. Just fire."I look at the Genie Pact as a possible way to frame a Sorcerer's Elemental Pact, but I think the themes diverge too much to fit under a single structure (resistances and boons, empowered, transformation) for one progression style to be satisfactory for all four (treating Storm Sorcerer as different from a true Air Sorcerer).

[Millstone85]

I'm still of the opinion that they should've just been one class to begin with for exactly that reason.You and me both.


You could cover the a lot of what the Sorcerer does thematically by just having a Pact of the Blood boon that reflects your body being inhuman/magical.I would rather see the warlock be absorbed into the sorcerer. Perhaps by converting eldritch blast and the boons into invocations, then giving the feature to the sorcerer. And I would keep it pure fluff whether your power comes from ancestry, a pact, or planar exposure.

Alternatively, the classes could remain separate, but warlock subclasses would be determined by pacts, not by patrons. And the warlock's spellcasting ability would be Intelligence.

[Amechra]

I would rather see the warlock be absorbed into the sorcerer. Perhaps by converting eldritch blast and the boons into invocations, then giving the feature to the sorcerer. And I would keep it pure fluff whether your power comes from ancestry, a pact, or planar exposure.

The reason why I'm leaning more towards Warlocks absorbing Sorcerers is because that would help avoid the Wizard comparisons.

[Edea]

...omg, I was going to post a thread yesterday about opinions on whether sorcerer and warlock should've just been one class, but decided not to because people would get up in arms about that being a silly idea.

Now I wish I'd posted it.

[Dienekes]

The reason why I'm leaning more towards Warlocks absorbing Sorcerers is because that would help avoid the Wizard comparisons.

Personally, I've always felt that the guy whose magic is set up as something that is draining and they need to take short rests between uses makes way more sense as a sorcerer who is supposed to have all this power be internal and thus is expending personal energy to do the effects.

Though, honestly I do actually think there is theoretically enough structural and potentially mechanical difference between the internal magic of a sorcerer and the one who sought out hidden magical entities and made pacts for their soul for power. I just don't think WotC did a particularly good job with it.

[Sam113097]

Alternatively, the classes could remain separate, but warlock subclasses would be determined by pacts, not by patrons. And the warlock's spellcasting ability would be Intelligence.

It would take some work, but I’ve felt like you could rework Origins/Patrons into templates that could work on both the Warlock and Sorcerer chassis. Int-based Warlocks could be defined by more robust Pact subclasses, while sorcerers would gain more features based on their templates, and they would both be able to pick from the same list of “Magic Sources” granting a few extra spells known and some other ribbons.

With Fey, Draconic, Fiendish, Primal, Shadow, Undead, Blade, and Elemental Magic Sources, you could effectively cover your bases for both classes.

[Amnestic]

...omg, I was going to post a thread yesterday about opinions on whether sorcerer and warlock should've just been one class, but decided not to because people would get up in arms about that being a silly idea.

Now I wish I'd posted it.

With the change in the way spellcasting works with preparing and spell slots in 5e compared to 3.5, a lot of what made sorcerer 'unique' in 3.5 was lost, so I can certainly see an argument of combining them. It does feel like they weren't 100% sure what they wanted to 'do' with sorcerers in this edition.

[cutlery]

Sorcerers don't offer much more than different flavor text, really, now that wizards don't have to prepare specific slots.

Metamagic could be part of a school of magic, feats (as in 3/3.5) or similar.

Warlocks in 5e do the "simple wizard" thing far better than sorcerers do, anyway.

It would be hard to play a monoclass sorcerer with wizards, warlocks, and bards all right there.

[Petrocorus]

Concerning Sorcerer and Warlock, at least they have some some difference in their origins.
In 3.5 their source of power were very similar, one had draconic blood, the other had outsider or fey blood.

Frankly, i will be fine with Warlock and Sorcerer being two classes if the Warlock was more like its 3.5 iteration with more emphasis on few at will powers. But with this caster progression, it's in a weird place with three main class features.
- One is EB and its option, except it's not really a class feature and it's easy for other classes to get it.
- One is its Invocation, but it doesn't get enough of them and some are really underwhelming.
- One is Pact Magic which more or less follow full spellcasting but with less spell slot than a half caster.

I think both classes need some rework.

[Azuresun]

Having reread the 3e Forgotten Realms setting book, a Shadow Weave Adept class for Wizards and a Spellfire "patron" for Warlocks would be neat.

[Tanarii]

- One is Pact Magic which more or less follow full spellcasting but with less spell slot than a half caster.
Thats technically correct in terms of maximum capacity and even per day at a certain point, but doesnt reflect the total power. Which is, as you note, roughly equivalent to a full spellcaster class.

Personally I like the tension between between weaker but at will and full power but limited to about once per encounter* in Tier 1 and 2. Especially when you start adding in invocations for more of one or the other.

*combat or non. Most non combat encounters requiring a warlock slot to bypass / succeed are probably at least Medium.

[Petrocorus]

Thats technically correct in terms of maximum capacity and even per day at a certain point, but doesnt reflect the total power. Which is, as you note, roughly equivalent to a full spellcaster class.

Personally I like the tension between between weaker but at will and full power but limited to about once per encounter* in Tier 1 and 2. Especially when you start adding in invocations for more of one or the other.

I actually like this too. I just feel the implementation need some work. More at will invocations, more invocations known, and a different system for the spell slots.



*combat or non. Most non combat encounters requiring a warlock slot to bypass / succeed are probably at least Medium.
The Cha focus combined with some invocations and spells can be so effective for social encounters.
This is what i like about the Warlock, it is so customizable and you can make so many different builds with it.

[LibraryOgre]

I miss 2e bards, who just picked up wizard magic. They weren't bad at it, but they also weren't terribly good (slower advancement of spell levels, capping at level 6). Given 5e's style, it would be difficult to implement.

[zinycor]

I miss 2e bards, who just picked up wizard magic. They weren't bad at it, but they also weren't terribly good (slower advancement of spell levels, capping at level 6). Given 5e's style, it would be difficult to implement.

I miss dart throwers from 2e. Also weapon speed.

[Dienekes]

I miss dart throwers from 2e. Also weapon speed.

Oh I hated weapon speed. Anything set up so the guy with the daggers gets to attack the guy with the 10 foot spear first is just wrong.

Mind you, all of D&D's combat is wrong. But weapon speed gets the reward for adding wrongness when they're trying to do something they think is right.

[LibraryOgre]

Oh I hated weapon speed. Anything set up so the guy with the daggers gets to attack the guy with the 10 foot spear first is just wrong.

Mind you, all of D&D's combat is wrong. But weapon speed gets the reward for adding wrongness when they're trying to do something they think is right.

Hackmaster has a similar weapon speed rule, but with two modifications:

1) If both people are ready, the longest weapon goes first in their initial conflict
2) If you hit someone hard enough, they may a) get pushed by 5 feet or b) get pushed back 10 feet and fall down AND, as a separate check, might also get incapacitated for 5 seconds to several minutes.

[MrStabby]

Thats technically correct in terms of maximum capacity and even per day at a certain point, but doesnt reflect the total power. Which is, as you note, roughly equivalent to a full spellcaster class.

Personally I like the tension between between weaker but at will and full power but limited to about once per encounter* in Tier 1 and 2. Especially when you start adding in invocations for more of one or the other.

*combat or non. Most non combat encounters requiring a warlock slot to bypass / succeed are probably at least Medium.

I think I am growing used to the idea. I think it's fine... but means I will never ever play a warlock again. Maybe file it under "Good for the Game, Bad for Me".

[cutlery]

I think I am growing used to the idea. I think it's fine... but means I will never ever play a warlock again. Maybe file it under "Good for the Game, Bad for Me".

I think the changes to encounter powers/short rests with 5e is the issue. There are so many ways to run out of short rest juice; and particularly if you go warlock with the plan to cast spells, it hurts.


Fighters are hit similarly (well, most of them); but I think people don't notice as much because fighters always tend to feel weak outside of tier 1, or have ever since 3.0.

It's just too easy to toss deadly enounters that favor nova builds with lots of long rest resources at a party. It's more work to spread things out so long resters have to conserve.

[Tanarii]

I think I am growing used to the idea. I think it's fine... but means I will never ever play a warlock again. Maybe file it under "Good for the Game, Bad for Me".
That's been Wizards for me since like 2e.

[Amechra]

Honestly, having some kind of forced pacing mechanic (like having to take two short rests between two long rest) would really help out the mechanical balance for classes... but it'd probably feel pretty artificial.

The difference between how 5e was apparently intended to be played (where encounters are mostly there to drain your resources) and how it often is played (where rests are frequent and combats are intended to be individually challenging) is kinda interesting.

...

I kinda want to see a Warlock Pact (no, not Patron) that encourages you to burn spell slots on blasting. Because as it stands, the fact that you're going to have 2-3 spell slots per short rest for most of your career means that dropping a spell slot on Guiding Bolt (Celestial) or Fireball (Fiend) isn't really in your best interest.

[cutlery]

I kinda want to see a Warlock Pact (no, not Patron) that encourages you to burn spell slots on blasting. Because as it stands, the fact that you're going to have 2-3 spell slots per short rest for most of your career means that dropping a spell slot on Guiding Bolt (Celestial) or Fireball (Fiend) isn't really in your best interest.

Wouldn't be a bad idea; I suppose they could have done it with spells, but magical secrets sort of ruin exclusive spells.

I'm not sure they are thinking in that direction, if pact of the talisman is any indication.

[Amechra]

magical secrets sort of ruin exclusive spells.

Magical Secrets is basically one of my least favorite parts of this edition. Sure, it's thematic on a Bard and all... but they also made the Bard a full caster, so it indirectly nerfs any higher-level spells that half-casters natively have access to. Because the Bard can pick them up a whole 3-7 levels early, and ends up with more/better uses for them.

It also contributes to the whole "Bards only get three subclass levels" thing.

[Dienekes]

Hackmaster has a similar weapon speed rule, but with two modifications:

1) If both people are ready, the longest weapon goes first in their initial conflict
2) If you hit someone hard enough, they may a) get pushed by 5 feet or b) get pushed back 10 feet and fall down AND, as a separate check, might also get incapacitated for 5 seconds to several minutes.

That's not terrible, but the best version of this sort of thing I've seen is -unsurprisingly- from Riddle of Steel.

Essentially, there's not really such a thing as Initiative as D&D portrays it. The game instead focuses on characters attack and defending against each other at the same time. But for these conflicts, the weapon with longer reach would have advantage based on how much longer they were compared to the opposing weapon. However, if the weapon with the smaller reach actually makes it in to get a solid attack against the longer weapon then the entire dynamic is completely reversed and the longer weapon can have one hell of a disadvantage if the dagger wielder actually does get inside their reach.

While certain maneuvers are only available to weapons that would usually be considered "quicker" like daggers or swords with a back-edge.


Honestly, having some kind of forced pacing mechanic (like having to take two short rests between two long rest) would really help out the mechanical balance for classes... but it'd probably feel pretty artificial.

The difference between how 5e was apparently intended to be played (where encounters are mostly there to drain your resources) and how it often is played (where rests are frequent and combats are intended to be individually challenging) is kinda interesting.

I maintain, 5e would have been better off if they kept the notion of Short Rest as a 10 minute thing that was expected to happen after every conflict. It's already stealing from 4e's At-Will, Encounter, Daily paradigm just more annoying to balance for the players and DM. I know that would mean rebalancing pretty much every Short Rest class, but it would saved so many headaches.

[zinycor]

It also contributes to the whole "Bards only get three subclass levels" thing.

I would like it if most classes got more subclass levels in general.

[Tanarii]

One that occurred to me today: a wild shaping subclass on an otherwise martial class.

[KorvinStarmast]

One that occurred to me today: a wild shaping subclass on an otherwise martial class.

Turn barbarian berserker into a shape changer, during combat.
I think berserk comes from an old word that means something like that. (https://www.etymonline.com/word/berserk)
an alternative form of berserker, a word which was introduced (as berserkar) by Sir Walter Scott in "The Pirate" (1822), from Old Norse berserkr (n.) "raging warrior of superhuman strength." It is probably from *ber- "bear" + serkr "shirt," thus literally "a warrior clothed in bearskin" (see bear (n.) + sark). Thus not, as Scott evidently believed, from Old Norse berr "bare, naked" and meaning "warrior who fights without armor.

[Spriteless]

Maybe a more melee focused character who could only heal themself, and steal life from monsters. Like a demon healer in In Nomine. (Look I know my character could have healed other people if I had taken the discord but WHY DO THAT.) Or the Vampire character class in 4e. Which could also shapechange into a bat.

I mean, I could just refluff any Fighter's second wind as that. Or be a blade Warlock who uses Vampiric Touch more often than necessary.

Or, if Lord of sorting through homebrew or possibly making copypasta wants to find a bunch of classes that are turning into a monster, that would also be good. I like PDFs and patreon creators more than anonymous wikis.

[Tanarii]

Turn barbarian berserker into a shape changer, during combat.
I think berserk comes from an old word that means something like that. (https://www.etymonline.com/word/berserk)
Yeah I guess I come back to: 4e style barbarian rages & warden forms.

[cutlery]

I mean, I could just refluff any Fighter's second wind as that. Or be a blade Warlock who uses Vampiric

A vampiric heal invocation would be really nice (and when I first read lifedrinker, that's what I thought it should be). I feel like I saw something to that effect somewhere in a UA, but I don't recall where.

They seem to have balanced in-combat healing to be rare, so it would probably be too strong unless it was something tiny like 1/2 proficiency per attack.

[Edea]

They seem to have balanced in-combat healing to be rare, so it would probably be too strong unless it was something tiny like 1/2 proficiency per attack.

The way death works is extremely forgiving in this edition. It can be kinda hard to actually die unless the DM goes out of their way to make things challenging. I can understand wanting to limit the in-peril heals a bit (though they're not limited THAT much).

[Petrocorus]

I mean, I could just refluff any Fighter's second wind as that. Or be a blade Warlock who uses Vampiric Touch more often than necessary.

I could easily see this on a Warlock.
Though it is already possible just by selecting the spell and casting it in each combat, it does require to have your nice short rests.
Maybe an Invocation giving special spell slots for it (an at-will will probably too high level) and maybe allowing it to be channelled through a pact blade.

[Amnestic]

This is probably more due to lack of spell support than subclass support but I would like an arcane spellcaster whose focus is entirely on delivering Touch-range spells to deal damage. Looking at spell lists there's very few spells which satisfy, so unless a great deal of new spells are added, you'd have to have a subclass that converts spells to touch range and gets a bonus to doing so. Probably goes outside of 5e's "simplicity" mantra though, so probably a non-starter idea tbh.

No, monk doesn't work for it in my head, even refluffed.

[MrStabby]

This is probably more due to lack of spell support than subclass support but I would like an arcane spellcaster whose focus is entirely on delivering Touch-range spells to deal damage. Looking at spell lists there's very few spells which satisfy, so unless a great deal of new spells are added, you'd have to have a subclass that converts spells to touch range and gets a bonus to doing so. Probably goes outside of 5e's "simplicity" mantra though, so probably a non-starter idea tbh.

No, monk doesn't work for it in my head, even refluffed.

Oh nice.

I did like the old arcant trickster that could sneak attack with some spells as well.

[Valmark]

Oh nice.

I did like the old arcant trickster that could sneak attack with some spells as well.

This too. It hasn't been long since I went to seek how to sneak attack with spells and realized there is no good way to do that- I was so disappointed. I think the only way to do something similar would be combining a cantrip like Booming Blade with sneak attack?

Or those few spells that use weapon attack rolls like...

...

...

...yeah I can't recall any.

[cutlery]

This is probably more due to lack of spell support than subclass support but I would like an arcane spellcaster whose focus is entirely on delivering Touch-range spells to deal damage.

This sounds cool, although I'm struggling to come up with a fictional archetype other than Scar from Fullmetal Alchemist (not that it's a particularly bad example).

[Valmark]

This sounds cool, although I'm struggling to come up with a fictional archetype other than Scar from Fullmetal Alchemist (not that it's a particularly bad example).

Aruka from Needless can melt everything with her hands and Shigaraki from MHA can corrode anything with his fingers!

At least before he got that bull**** turn-everything-in-a-thousand-long-line-into-dust upgrade. Or whatever lenght it is.

Black Swan from Records of a Fallen Vampire erases magic with her hands (well, specific magic but close) while Hei from Darker than Black electrocutes through his hands (though he can use conductive materials).

Conviniently, besides Black Swan these characters are all [insert element here] with them being Fire, Necrotic and Lightning in d&d terms (at least, I think melting people through microwaves should be Fire).
And Black Swan is "bypass any defense and nullify most attack spells". Would be easier in 3.5 with touch AC though.

[cutlery]

And Black Swan is "bypass any defense and nullify most attack spells". Would be easier in 3.5 with touch AC though.

There is no way a version of that would be balanced in 5e.

Since casters get the same proficiency progression everyone else does, the old touch attack system isn't necessary anymore.

Contagion and Shocking Grasp probably fit, more or less, as does something like Vampiric Touch.

I haven't seen any of the stuff you've referenced, but I'm going to guess that like the one I mentioned it, as presented in the source material, is bonkers overpowered so little in 5e would capture the same feel. These are essentially instant kills.

Of course, you could always choose to touch someone when using power word kill or disintegrate.


So; blah blah all ranged spell attack spells are touch spells for you, but you get... something like bladesinger AC.

It would need to be full caster to get the power level right, and burning high level spell slots would probably hurt; maybe they can use touch-y cantrips with their caster ability bonus (but not split die like eldritch blast) for rounds when they don't want to use a full leveled spell slot.

[stoutstien]

This too. It hasn't been long since I went to seek how to sneak attack with spells and realized there is no good way to do that- I was so disappointed. I think the only way to do something similar would be combining a cantrip like Booming Blade with sneak attack?

Or those few spells that use weapon attack rolls like...

...

...

...yeah I can't recall any.

shadowblade is the big one

[Valmark]

There is no way a version of that would be balanced in 5e.

Since casters get the same proficiency progression everyone else does, the old touch attack system isn't necessary anymore.

Contagion and Shocking Grasp probably fit, more or less, as does something like Vampiric Touch.

I haven't seen any of the stuff you've referenced, but I'm going to guess that like the one I mentioned it, as presented in the source material, is bonkers overpowered so little in 5e would capture the same feel. These are essentially instant kills.

Of course, you could always choose to touch someone when using power word kill or disintegrate.

So; blah blah all ranged spell attack spells are touch spells for you, but you get... something like bladesinger AC.

It would need to be full caster to get the power level right, and burning high level spell slots would probably hurt; maybe they can use touch-y cantrips with their caster ability bonus (but not split die like eldritch blast) for rounds when they don't want to use a full leveled spell slot.
Yeah, they'd need to be heavily adapted and toned down- though those are far from overpowered in their own setting. Out of all I've quoted, the lightning one is the only one that consistently wins (I mean, it's the protagonist) and needs to sweat heavily to deliver every time (because there would be no fun otherwise, honestly).

But yes, in the context of 5e, you can't really translate them directly. Though your cantrip idea isn't far off the mark, considering stuff like Shocking Grasp.

shadowblade is the big one

Thank you, I knew there was at least one but couldn't remember it.

[Petrocorus]

The more i think about, the more i think a Dex barbarian subclass would be nice.

[stoutstien]

i was going to see what and how the new option get printed before posting but alas I want my pipe dreams as well.


a rogue that trades sneak attack dice for effects/ recharges every round
a artificer that focuses on mind screwing/control. the new spells are a good start
an artificer with more item knack so that it is like the lore bard but with infusions
a sorcerer or warlock that does blood magic. risk/reward casting is something i miss
a meatier ranger that has some mitigation and ways of drawing enemies

[zinycor]

I would like an artist artificer, an artificer that makes paintings that "come to life" in some way.

[stoutstien]

I would like an artist artificer, an artificer that makes paintings that "come to life" in some way.

you can already do this in a way. using the tools required feature you can paint your spells. it is also not a large leap to allow artillerist to use any tool to create cannons vs just wood carving or smith tools.

[zinycor]

you can already do this in a way. using the tools required feature you can paint your spells. it is also not a large leap to allow artillerist to use any tool to create cannons vs just wood carving or smith tools.

I guess you are right. Nice thinking.

[stoutstien]

I guess you are right. Nice thinking.

i have an ARTificer in my very large pile of PC ill never get to play as a permeant DM.