Uncovered Concepts in 5e [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

AureusFulgens

2020-12-29, 02:46 PM

What fantasy character concepts can you think of that aren't covered by the class options in D&D 5e, specifically the standard ones from WotC? Either directly (e.g. "you could refluff this other thing to be X but it isn't the default flavor") or at all ("there is no way to play X").

Context: I've been doing some setting building in the back of my head and I'm wondering, say, what kinds of magic/concepts I've forgotten to think about because I've been playing 5e for a long time and my brain is stuck there. And yes, I am also interested if something that's brought up is more nicely covered in some third-party supplement or another system altogether.

The big ones that come to my mind, as a start:

Summoner, medieval style. Medieval European understanding of magic, as far as I know, was often "most or all of your magic consists of summoning, binding, and commanding demons/the dead/the Fae/other spirits to serve you." I don't see a good way to approach magic this way in D&D. Planar Binding exists at high levels, and you could always reskin a warlock or wizard's spells to be accomplished by tiny invisible spirits, for example, but that dynamic of needing to summon Mephistopheles or Bartimaeus or the gentleman with thistledown hair or Chaunzaggoroth or whoever into your presence to accomplish most or all of your serious magic seems out of reach.

Bond creature. Things like being bonded to a dragon or a Radiant spren are a pretty common trope, as far as I've seen, but D&D doesn't really support them. For obvious reasons, mind you, since it doesn't even handle the few kinds of companions it does support all that well and there are balance difficulties with implementing them, but still, it's a bit of uncovered conceptual space.

Thoughts?

Warder

2020-12-29, 02:54 PM

Dualswinger

2020-12-29, 02:58 PM

The 3.5 style Kensai, not so much the "monk who uses weapons" but the concept of someone who's dedicated themself to an individual specific weapon that is purely their own, almost to the point where using another weapon, even of the same style, might be like fighting blindfolded to them.

A bit JRPG but the "Dragoon" style. A fighter who focuses on jumping and impaling targets with their lance

Gambler Sorcerer (or any other caster but I think Sorcerer fits best) who casts all their magic randomly through card draws and d6 rolls.

And this is more "prestige" than anything but I still love the idea and that's the "Magic Missile Mage" that basically has as many options for the classic spell as the warlock does for E.Blast

Dualswinger

2020-12-29, 03:02 PM

opaopajr

2020-12-29, 04:05 PM

I've always thought that it's a shame that there is no real support for some kind of "swordmaster"-style build that brings to mind Aragorn or Geralt or Madmartigan. Light-ish armor, two-handed sword, a mix of strength and dexterity. It's a very classic image, but 5e pushes you hard to go either full strength with the heaviest armor you can get, or full dex with no armor and finesse weapons. Sure there are ways to build something like it, but none of them have felt very fulfilling to me.

What exactly are you looking for to be fulfilled?

I've played starting STR 14, DEX 14 light & mid armor (and STR 14, DEX 16 light armor) builds with different styles and they pleased me well. But then I also love using my Interact w/ Object and messing with environment interactables like old buccaneer & sword n sorcery films. Pre-Tasha STR/DEX 14/14 is easy for every race in Point Buy and even Standard Array.

It helps to use distance, positioning, Dodging and other tricks to survive in early lvls, but easy enough.

LordShade

2020-12-29, 04:17 PM

What exactly are you looking for to be fulfilled?

I've played starting STR 14, DEX 14 light & mid armor (and STR 14, DEX 16 light armor) builds with different styles and they pleased me well. But then I also love using my Interact w/ Object and messing with environment interactables like old buccaneer & sword n sorcery films. Pre-Tasha STR/DEX 14/14 is easy for every race in Point Buy and even Standard Array.

It helps to use distance, positioning, Dodging and other tricks to survive in early lvls, but easy enough.

Mostly, it's the opportunity cost of putting a 14/16 in a weapon attack stat that isn't going to be used. Starting with 14 Str/Dex, how do you progress? If you go into Str with GWM, you might as well wear heavy armor and then you should have left Dex at a 8 or 10. If you go for SS pumping Dex and melee finesse weapons, what was the point of putting a 14 in Str? Those are points that could have helped Wisdom or Charisma skills and roleplaying.

If you try to raise both Str and Dex, you're just going to be underpowered in point buy.

The issue in 5e is that both Str and Dex cover all 3 of armor class, melee attacks, and ranged attacks. Str is primary for melee+GWM, and Dex is primary for ranged+SS. They have no synergy with each other--they are mutually exclusive depending on your weapon and armor loadout.

For this build to be comparable in power to standard builds, there needs to be some kind of mechanic that takes advantage of high scores in both strength and dexterity, or more clearly delineating what Strength does and what Dexterity does.

Foxhound438

2020-12-29, 04:36 PM

Mostly, it's the opportunity cost of putting a 14/16 in a weapon attack stat that isn't going to be used. Starting with 14 Str/Dex, how do you progress? If you go into Str with GWM, you might as well wear heavy armor and then you should have left Dex at a 8 or 10. If you go for SS pumping Dex and melee finesse weapons, what was the point of putting a 14 in Str? Those are points that could have helped Wisdom or Charisma skills and roleplaying.

If you try to raise both Str and Dex, you're just going to be underpowered in point buy.

The issue in 5e is that both Str and Dex cover all 3 of armor class, melee attacks, and ranged attacks. Str is primary for melee+GWM, and Dex is primary for ranged+SS. They have no synergy with each other--they are mutually exclusive depending on your weapon and armor loadout.

For this build to be comparable in power to standard builds, there needs to be some kind of mechanic that takes advantage of high scores in both strength and dexterity, or more clearly delineating what Strength does and what Dexterity does.

I think I would like to see a fighter archetype that gets special movement abilities that key off of dex and special offensive abilities that key off of strength. But it seems like a sacred cow in this edition that nothing requires you to have more than one good physical stat and one good mental stat. Heck, a lot of post PHB things seem to err more towards discarding physical stats altogether (hexblade, astral monk, armorer arteficer)

Grey Watcher

2020-12-29, 04:52 PM

The only ones I can think of mostly involve the way magic gets split up. Like, there's no Fire Wizard specialization (beyond spell selection), so if you have a setting where magic is split up by element rather than the default D&D schools of magic, you've got your work cut out for you.

Alchemy is somewhat underserved. I understand that they're trying to avoid having more and more classes, but I always felt like Alchemist needed to be a class unto itself, not a subclass of Artificer (there's a third party Alchemist on DM's Guild I like, so it's doable).

So far not a lot of support for the idea of "hurt self for extra power" motif. The closest you get is the third party plus Blood Hunter, but that's very specific and doesn't necessarily have all the options I might want.

Evaar

2020-12-29, 04:58 PM

LordShade

2020-12-29, 05:00 PM

A dedicated psionicist class is a missing archetype too. I wish they continued refining the Mystic, while keeping its unique mechanics.

Dragonsonthemap

2020-12-29, 05:11 PM

Foxhound438

2020-12-29, 05:43 PM

A dedicated psionicist class is a missing archetype too. I wish they continued refining the Mystic, while keeping its unique mechanics.

They were so close to a balanced class too. They just needed to figure out what they wanted the class to do rather than give it mechanics to do everything at the same time better than anyone else can.

bendking

2020-12-29, 06:04 PM

Even with Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and the Battlesmith, I still find myself wanting a dedicated Magus class to be the counterpart of Paladin.
Yes, Artificer is similar to that, especially Battlesmith, but that class is quite geared toward support rather than direct combat efficiency.

I will also second a dedicated Psionic class. Quite a shame they didn't follow through with Mystic.

Evaar

2020-12-29, 06:12 PM

Gambler Sorcerer (or any other caster but I think Sorcerer fits best) who casts all their magic randomly through card draws and d6 rolls.

Couldn't this just be a flavored wild magic sorcerer?

Dualswinger

2020-12-29, 06:48 PM

Couldn't this just be a flavored wild magic sorcerer?

Perhaps, but I meant more mechanically. Like how in Deadlands, there's a class that actually uses a 52 playing card deck to cast their spells

Lord Raziere

2020-12-29, 06:56 PM

Even with Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and the Battlesmith, I still find myself wanting a dedicated Magus class to be the counterpart of Paladin.

I will also second a dedicated Psionic class. Quite a shame they didn't follow through with Mystic.

Agreed and agreed. we got three 25/75 splits in various directions and a combat enchanter, but we don't have that proper 50/50 magus y'know?

also, paladin just doesn't seem satisfactory for the dark knight experience I want for some reason.

KorvinStarmast

2020-12-29, 08:22 PM

What fantasy character concepts can you think of that aren't covered by the class options in D&D 5e, specifically the standard ones from WotC? The game is customizable enough that if you want to arrive at a particular concept, you can. It's a decent tool kit.

A lot of fantasy characters from fiction are, like a certain drow ranger, mary sue ish and thus not balanced with having to Work In A Team.

D&D is about Teamwork. Was in the beginning, and still is.

(Yes I am aware of Pun Pun ...)

Dienekes

2020-12-30, 01:04 AM

The game is customizable enough that if you want to arrive at a particular concept, you can. It's a decent tool kit.

A lot of fantasy characters from fiction are, like a certain drow ranger, mary sue ish and thus not balanced with having to Work In A Team.

D&D is about Teamwork. Was in the beginning, and still is.

(Yes I am aware of Pun Pun ...)

I think there's a sizable difference between wanting to play as Superman and thinking the game is silly for having one of its most known characters being a two-weapon using ranger with a pet, who has to choose each round between using their two weapons or getting their pet to do anything but stand like a zombie.

Anyway, I'm also in the situation where a lot of the stuff I want is technically in the game, just done in a horrible way.

Most obvious example the Warlord class remains the best thing to come from 4e. You can play as one in 5e if you take the travesty that is the Purple Dragon Knight or like pretty much every other martial concept pick a Battlemaster pick the two or three maneuvers that are relevant to what you want to do, get them at level 3 and then get nothing that benefits your concept until the end of the game. Woo.

Or -like everything in this game with even a modicum of complexity at all- just play a caster pretend you're a warlord and hope there's no anti-magic to make it so your brilliant tactical advantages and organization skills don't work.

Sorinth

2020-12-30, 01:42 AM

Mostly, it's the opportunity cost of putting a 14/16 in a weapon attack stat that isn't going to be used. Starting with 14 Str/Dex, how do you progress? If you go into Str with GWM, you might as well wear heavy armor and then you should have left Dex at a 8 or 10. If you go for SS pumping Dex and melee finesse weapons, what was the point of putting a 14 in Str? Those are points that could have helped Wisdom or Charisma skills and roleplaying.

If you try to raise both Str and Dex, you're just going to be underpowered in point buy.

The issue in 5e is that both Str and Dex cover all 3 of armor class, melee attacks, and ranged attacks. Str is primary for melee+GWM, and Dex is primary for ranged+SS. They have no synergy with each other--they are mutually exclusive depending on your weapon and armor loadout.

For this build to be comparable in power to standard builds, there needs to be some kind of mechanic that takes advantage of high scores in both strength and dexterity, or more clearly delineating what Strength does and what Dexterity does.

If you are Dex focused then whether you make strength or wisdom a secondary/tertiary stat it doesn't really matter mechanically. In both instances all they do is impact a couple skills, so if you want the atheltic guy then go with strength, if you want the perceptive one go with wisdom, etc...

Luccan

2020-12-30, 02:05 AM

Mr Adventurer

2020-12-30, 03:43 AM

I've always thought that it's a shame that there is no real support for some kind of "swordmaster"-style build that brings to mind Aragorn or Geralt or Madmartigan. Light-ish armor, two-handed sword, a mix of strength and dexterity. It's a very classic image, but 5e pushes you hard to go either full strength with the heaviest armor you can get, or full dex with no armor and finesse weapons. Sure there are ways to build something like it, but none of them have felt very fulfilling to me.

Thinking about this concept, because it is close to my heart...

Medium armour is "lightish". Breastplate or chain shirt, etc. So there's Dex 14, a decent cutoff and a decent ability score bonus for skills.

Then make a Str-primary. The key thing would be to use your class and feature choices to replicate some of that agile combat you want. Battlemaster seems like the obvious choice.

You can keep Str at 16 until level 8 or so if you want.

Out of interest is a Greatsword required or would a Longsword that is switched between one and two hands be appropriate?

Edit: I've been playing around with a "swordmaster" build for a while that uses Kensai 3 to get Dex to Longsword, then multiclasses into Ranger for more brute fighting prowess and Wis-synergy casting where the spells known are used to improve the core skills (e.g. Hunter's Mark, Zaphyr Strike). Not exactly what you describe but possibly adjacent.

Morty

2020-12-30, 03:53 AM

Dienekes

2020-12-30, 08:01 AM

For as traditional as this concept is, it really is weird how not just D&D but many other games have a glaring blind spot for it.

Most games I’ve seen that do allow it, either make Fighting it’s own stat or divide their Strength and Dexterity stats up so both are if not necessary then heavily nudged toward when making a melee combatant.

5e as a whole seems to want to simply math and character creation so you only really need to focus on one stat for everything.

And it makes sense why, it would be odd in a game where ability score increases are so restrictively doled out to have some classes only rely on one stat to do all their casting or attacking needs while another needs to focus on two to be offensive plus the usual needs of constitution for survival.

And the obvious answer: create a fighter subclass that values both, has to ask how they will be valued. It can’t stray too far from bounded accuracy so a lot of the go to solutions the game sets up to portray ability scores affecting success are not available. Try to make different abilities with the subclass that require both Str and Dex and you’re more likely to get the player base to only focus on half the subclass for most the game and only bother with the rest at the higher later levels when they have ASIs to spare and no feats they’d rather take instead. And honestly a character concept that does not come online until level 12 or so is not a particularly well designed implementation of such a basic fantasy concept.

Valmark

2020-12-30, 08:53 AM

Personally I would love it if the Rage Mage and the Binder were ported in from 3.5- really miss their flavour (and also the unique mechanics of the Binder, which I think could be replicated using an Infusion or Invocation-like system).

And while there are homebrews for both... Well, they are homebrews. I've seen them being nayed more often then not.

AureusFulgens

2020-12-30, 02:39 PM

Genie Warlock went some way towards this, but an elementalist character type is one I'd really like to see more support for.

The Pathfinder Oracle and Magus classes are both things that 5e has kinda done with Divine Soul and Bladesinger but hasn't quite match.

Can you elaborate on what you'd be looking for in an Elementalist and an Oracle? I'm vaguely aware of the PF2 Magus, but not so much of the Oracle, and I can think of a lot of ways an Elementalist could go.

Perhaps, but I meant more mechanically. Like how in Deadlands, there's a class that actually uses a 52 playing card deck to cast their spells

That sounds absolutely delightful and I had no idea I wanted it but now I do.

I say this every time the topic comes up and I'll keep saying it: a dedicated shapeshifter. I think one of the main reasons that's not already a thing is it's hard to balance right. There's a reason it's mostly in the realm of high level spells and why druids are limited to beasts withing certain thresholds. But I think it would fit in just fine. Though 5e's subclass system makes it a bit awkward. Maybe one subclass focused on manipulating your own body and another focused on changing form entirely. A third could go the were-beast/hengeyokai route and focus on a "single" alternate that changes your regular form and has a hybrid with its own benefits.

I was in the middle of thinking through how I'd pitch a shapeshifter in this thread myself, so it's nice to see that great minds think alike :smallbiggrin:

Here's another one. So, background, I am playing a Hexblade archer (Lachina) in a long-term game right now; we started at 3rd nearly two years ago, are at 19th now, and will finish with an arc at 20th. And since late 4th/5th level, Lachina has wielded the same artifact weapon: the Living Blade of Innenotdar (yes, "Blade," see spoiler).

Mechanically speaking, the LBoI (the Ell Boi, if you will) grants new abilities as Lachina levels, roughly at every level that her proficiency bonus increases. I recently reached the end of this progression.
At the start, it's a +1 weapon that can shapeshift (which is why, despite it being known to history as a Living Blade, she can wield it as a longbow). The enhancement bonus becomes +2 and then +3 at later levels.
At 5th level, it gains an ability that she can activate when she takes fire damage to light it up for one minute and deal 1d6 fire on every hit with it. That improves to 2d6 at 13th level.
At 9th level, it gains a 1/SR reaction to throw half of the damage from a melee attack back in the attacker's face. Doesn't come up too often, but it's satisfying when it does.
And, the kicker, at 17th level, it grants the wielder a once-ever Wish (it subsequently kills you, but my DM has ruled that in compensation he'll treat the BS Threshold for it as higher than for an ordinary Wish).

Not to mention it has big plot connections for her. It's the legendary weapon of the protectors of her homeland, carved from the tree she and her whole fey race were born from, and for Various Plot Reasons her taking it up and bonding to it literally saved her people from destruction. Since the tree (her Warlock patron) subsequently died, I've been treating the Blade as her patron. In-game, I typically refer to it as a "he."
So this weapon has been defining her build and character arc for most of the long, long time I've been playing her, and I think that's really neat. And that isn't something 5e usually provides for outside of specific adventures (like this one, The War of the Burning Sky): a character's powers being granted by and tied to a signature artifact.

(It's also pretty common in fiction for a martial hero to wield a legendary weapon that ties them into the plot and grants them their signature powers: Excalibur for King Arthur, Durendal for Roland, the Sword of Summer for Frey and then Magnus Chase in those Rick Riordan books, Mwindo's flyswatter, Maui's fishhook (at least as presented in Moana), Thor's hammer, the three Swords of the Cross for Michael Carpenter and his comrades in the Dresden Files... It's a trope that doesn't really make it into D&D.)

Evaar

2020-12-30, 03:15 PM

And the obvious answer: create a fighter subclass that values both, has to ask how they will be valued. It can’t stray too far from bounded accuracy so a lot of the go to solutions the game sets up to portray ability scores affecting success are not available. Try to make different abilities with the subclass that require both Str and Dex and you’re more likely to get the player base to only focus on half the subclass for most the game and only bother with the rest at the higher later levels when they have ASIs to spare and no feats they’d rather take instead. And honestly a character concept that does not come online until level 12 or so is not a particularly well designed implementation of such a basic fantasy concept.

It's an interesting puzzle. Just to brainstorm a little, maybe there could be a feature that comes online at 7 or 10 to allow both your Strength and Dexterity bonuses to add together for your hit bonus when you use a weapon with the Versatile property. And another feature allowing you to add more of your Dex bonus to AC while wearing medium armor. You wouldn't want that first feature to come online too early, because a level 3 character shouldn't have a +8 to hit. But 7 or 10 should be the point at which the character's Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution starts to lag behind a SAD character and the player can decide which way they lean while relying on this feature to keep their hit bonus on par or even better than average.

But probably this would just end up being another quarterstaff PAM goofball, since those are versatile too. Maybe another class feature could grant a bonus action attack with versatile weapons, just beat PAM to the punch and further reward using a longsword.

It would probably need a new Fighting Style too. Defensive works fine, but it's not really in keeping with the flavor. You'd want something that rewards Versatile here as well. The obvious choice is to gain a defensive benefit when you attack with one hand that lasts until you attack with two hands, and an offensive benefit when you attack with two hands that lasts until you attack with one hand. But if those are just going to replicate Defensive and Dueling or Great Weapon Fighting, eh? Seems lackluster, there's probably something more interesting to be done. Maybe a round-by-round "stance" option giving access to a Reaction parry operating like Defensive Duelist or even Shield, or a static damage bonus. The static damage bonus is tricky, though, because how do you differentiate that from Duelist? This may be getting way overcomplicated at this stage, but I can imagine something like "After you hit a creature with an attack on your turn, you gain a +3 bonus to damage rolls against that creature until the end of your turn or until you attack another creature. This bonus is not cumulative." So you'd hit once, and then all your follow-up strikes that turn are extra effective as long as you focus on that target.

So you'd end up with a Fighter who uses a longsword, swaps between 1-hand and 2-hand based on the situation, splits their ASIs between Strength and Dexterity for offense, still has to invest enough in Constitution to be a frontliner, excels when fighting a single target with a lot of health, and attacks as much as a PAM/Xbow expert fighter. Is that enough of a niche on its own? Probably not, it would probably still need more to be more valuable, and all of this work has made it a mechanically very complex class in order to pull off what should be a very basic concept.

JackPhoenix

2020-12-30, 03:23 PM

Evaar

2020-12-30, 03:31 PM

Every single barbarian?

Ah yes, Aragorn, the classic raging Barbarian.

LordShade

2020-12-30, 04:02 PM

That's a good point, I think Rogue or Barbarian/Rogue (already a strong multiclass) is a pretty good way to represent this character. Barbs want to go Str/GWM for damage, but need some Dex whether they go for medium armor or Unarmored Defense.

The main issue is the dis-synergy between GWM and Sneak Attack. Not sure how to resolve that.

MrStabby

2020-12-30, 08:39 PM

I think there's a sizable difference between wanting to play as Superman and thinking the game is silly for having one of its most known characters being a two-weapon using ranger with a pet, who has to choose each round between using their two weapons or getting their pet to do anything but stand like a zombie.

Anyway, I'm also in the situation where a lot of the stuff I want is technically in the game, just done in a horrible way.

This seems close to my experience.

So many caster themes can be covered by "well play a wizard and just don't take advantage of those spells from outside your theme".

Or things like wanting to be a druid focussed on plants - well just skip all the summoning spells and hope that you enjoy lashing vine a lot.

Or a holy warrior using a bow - play a paladin but just don't use some of their class features.

I think that the alternative class features UA/consideration in Tasha's showed some promise here, at least as an idea. If for example paladin could swap out smiting for say another support ability the cost of being an archer suddenly drops.

On the other hand, sometimes calsses surprise by being able to cover this well - strength based rogues for example are not far off what you might expect from a class that was a bit of a thug.

CheddarChampion

2020-12-31, 02:22 AM

I feel like a concept existing and not being in 5e doesn't justify putting it on a list of things missing from 5e. D&D isn't exactly missing something by not having a class/subclass to play as a vampire from Twilight, for example. To make such a list, you gotta have archetypes that fit well and wouldn't break game balance. Archetypes that exist outside of D&D/are well established.

The swordmaster? Yeah. Nothing in 5e really fits that archetype.
The dark knight? There's a few things that come close but nothing that gets it exactly. But maybe a dark knight isn't really a fit for a PC.

Personally I hate the idea that 5e is missing a summoner. I'm not sure why, but this just makes me mad.
5e is missing a Diabolist, sure. I think demon-binding blood-sacrificing dark-arts-studying magician is recognizable. But what the heck is "A summoner" outside of a game? Is there a famous summoner, as well known as Aragorn, King Arthur, Conan the Barbarian, or Harry Potter? Is the summoner as well established as the proud warrior, the greedy thief, the outgoing minstrel, the bleeding-heart priest? Is there a way to put a summoner in 5e that is sufficiently powerful without messing up part of the game (significantly adding to how long a round of combat takes)? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there's a thing or two I'm not aware of, but I don't think so.

Lord Raziere

2020-12-31, 04:15 AM

The dark knight? There's a few things that come close but nothing that gets it exactly. But maybe a dark knight isn't really a fit for a PC.

Maybe your not an authority on what should or shouldn't be a PC, and if I want to be a dark knight who isn't evil in DnD I shouldn't have to obey some stupid aesthetics I find stupid just because people want Light = good and dark = evil and I don't. and that DnD has a massive problem with mere aesthetics being more than they should be.

Kane0

2020-12-31, 05:11 AM

Some possibilities

Summoner: Chain pact warlock with some extra spells and invocations thrown in for additional binding and summoning

Swordmaster: Some mix of ranger, rogue and/or fighter

Switch-hitter: Also fighter probably, they get more ASIs for weapon style feats. Champ has a second style but you could also take the feat or dip into ranger/paladin instead.

Gambler mage: I remember seeing a college of fortune bard homebrew which I thought was amazing

Hurt-self-for-gain: I’ve seen a few alternatives proposed for Hit Dice in homebrew, primarily for sorcerer but could work for most if not all classes

Refined psionics: Mystic has been continually worked on here in the homebrew forums, Some great stuff if you do a little searching.

Magus: Could swap around the paladins spell list and swap some class features (like auras) for alternatives stolen from other gishes (EK, Bladesinger, Valor Bard, etc)

Dualswinger

2020-12-31, 05:16 AM

That sounds absolutely delightful and I had no idea I wanted it but now I do.

Here’s a home brew I knocked up. Interested in your thoughts.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUr2vkz2tDvq9QcCD12hRqkkO4Yimulbzdk9wFc1alU/edit

GeoffWatson

2020-12-31, 05:22 AM

What's wrong with Paladin or Fighter for "Dark Knight"? Just wear black.
Or is there a specific character you are referring to that I'm missing? Batman? He's the Dark Knight, isn't he?

Swordmaster is just a fighter or ranger or paladin or barbarian who chooses to wear light armour, with decent strength and dexterity. Maybe it isn't as min/maxed as the characters with 20Str/8Dex or 20Dex/8Str, but it's still viable. Maybe they rolled for ability scores and didn't roll any really low scores.

Lord Raziere

2020-12-31, 07:10 AM

JackPhoenix

2020-12-31, 07:30 AM

Maybe they rolled for ability scores and didn't roll any really low scores.

On that note, people should realize their favorite characters from [insert medium that's not D&D] aren't limited in ability scores by game balance concerns. Everyone with assumptions like "you can't pump both Dex and Str on one character" forget that while point buy is standard in AL and discussions on the internet due to balance, the default method of generating ability scores is rolling, and point buy (and standard array) are variant rules.

No I'm not referring to batman. *eye roll*

The problem is fighter has no powers to go with it and paladin is too holy and defensive.

The problem is that you haven't explained what *YOU* think dark knight is. "Dark knight" doesn't mean anything in itself.

Sception

2020-12-31, 07:43 AM

Paladin, via oaths like Vengeance, Oathbreaker, & Conquest works very well as a black knight. If defensiveness is your concern, try it. Conquest is still pretty defensive, but Vengeance & Oathbreaker are some of the more offensive classes in the game.

As for holy... the main issue here isn't thematics - again vengeance, oath breaker, & conquest are all pretty dark by default - but rather damage type. Radiant damage just doesn't feel quite right for a dark knight archetype, including the paladins darker subclasses.

What I would like to see there is a class feature variant for paladin changing the damage type of their divine smite and improved divine smite features based on alignment. Radiant for good, Necrotic for evil, with neutral getting a choice of one or the other (or possibly some other type, maybe force or thunder).

I personally wouldn't object to a new dedicated dark knight class, mind. More options is more fun, imo. But between eldritch knights, hexblades, and the darker paladin oaths I wouldn't exactly call the concept 'uncovered'.

....

One thing I would like to see is a 'shadowcaster'. Illusionist comes close in spells, shadow sorcerer the right fluff, and trickery cleric has something close to the feature I'm looking for, so as with dark knight it's not exactly uncovered, but I'd like something more closely tied to the caster's shadow specifically. Maybe it could be implemented as a warlock pact boon? or even a new familiar option for the chain boon.

Rater202

2020-12-31, 07:50 AM

An arcanist who isn't just pursuing knowledge or power, but has a specific "self-improvement" goal.

I mean, how many stories are there where the wizard/mystic/evil overlord turns into a dragon of somekind when their mystical powers reach their apex?

where's my Archlich?

Where's my alchemist or sage steadily building up reagents that improve themselves while they focus their minds on certain concepts with the ultimate goal of becoming immortal?

Lord Raziere

2020-12-31, 10:00 AM

The problem is that you haven't explained what *YOU* think dark knight is. "Dark knight" doesn't mean anything in itself.

Hm, fair. very well I'll explain it as simply as I can: This (https://www.finalfantasyd20.com/classes/base-classes/dark-knight/).

Dragonsonthemap

2020-12-31, 10:17 AM

Can you elaborate on what you'd be looking for in an Elementalist and an Oracle? I'm vaguely aware of the PF2 Magus, but not so much of the Oracle, and I can think of a lot of ways an Elementalist could go.

For elementalist I'd just like options to play a caster or half-caster (or both) that can specialize in one of the classical elements for their abilities. Genie Pact Warlock mostly lets you do this with Warlock, I'd just like to see other options to do it as well. It would be much simpler if spells could have an elemental tag, but unfortunately, they don't.

In PF1 the Oracle was initially just "Sorcerer, but for clerics," but by PF2 it's grown into a class that's defined by a series of curses, which can become milder or worse throughout the day, and which provide growing benefits alongside their growing detriments, while still being a fairly sorcerer-esque full progression caster. At one point there was also an option that let you basically take cleric domains. Classes that let you use another class' subclass would in general be cool.

Necrosnoop110

2020-12-31, 10:47 AM

A pure, official, complete, and supported Psion with a full spread of disciplines including my all time favorite: Telepath. Never been happy with the options available so far. (UA Mystic, GOO Warlock and now Aberrant Mind Sorcerer)

RSP

2020-12-31, 10:56 AM

GeoffWatson

2020-12-31, 05:37 PM

Hm, fair. very well I'll explain it as simply as I can: This (https://www.finalfantasyd20.com/classes/base-classes/dark-knight/).

Ignoring the obviously over-powered stuff, you have a paladin/blackguard variant. Pick one of the darker paladin subtypes.

Evaar

2020-12-31, 05:55 PM

Ignoring the obviously over-powered stuff, you have a paladin/blackguard variant. Pick one of the darker paladin subtypes.

Or Hexblade. Or a combo Paladin/Hexblade. Seems quite doable in 5e.

Valmark

2020-12-31, 06:25 PM

Ignoring the obviously over-powered stuff, you have a paladin/blackguard variant. Pick one of the darker paladin subtypes.

Or Hexblade. Or a combo Paladin/Hexblade. Seems quite doable in 5e.

I don't think any of these hit the mark- the Dark Knight in that setting is really something like using 'evil' powers to protect others and defeat whoever's the wrongdoer, which the paladin's darker subclasses don't quite cover (and the hexblade's fluff even less due to the whole pact thing).

Albions_Angel

2020-12-31, 06:56 PM

So so much.

Duskblade/Magus archetype. Nothing quite does this yet, but channelling spells is... well its just cool.

Summoner. It can be done with existing classes in the sense of "I cast spells to summon creatures" but not only are most summoning spells heavily restricted by the concentration stipulation, making a pure summoner extremely risky, but you cant "keep" and "augment" a summons currently. The Pathfinder summoner is about what I want from a dedicated summoning class. Permanent companion that is very changeable, and limited spell casting to further increase minion count. And the archetypes write themselves (or rather, Paizo wrote them already), with the standard summoner, the one that "summons" the spirit into themselves, the one that foregoes one summon for multiple weaker ones, and so on. Artificer comes close but not quite there either. Besides, for some tables, even refluffing is a step too far. We have animal companions, and now robot companions. Where is my spirit companion.

No one else ever seems to want it back, but I miss Incarnum magic. A lot. It was so freaking cool. If done well, if rebalanced well, you could also fold in the factotum. The flavour, the mechanics, man I wish that stuff was in 5e.

Binder. If it needs to be a subclass of summoner, so be it, but binders were cool.

Oh, and shadowcasters.

Um, dare I say it, but with bounded accuracy, maybe... maybe truenamer could work? Nah, that would never happen.

While we are on the topic of magic subsystems, why on earth did they stop with modifying the Mystic? There were close. Not perfect. Not ready. But CLOSE. And then they threw it all away.

A friend played a homebrew warlord class. I think it was a 4e import, but it sounded like the marshal to me. Anyway, that should be official. A non-magic buffing class. Oooh, you could role in the dragon priest. Aura class.

Ok, Im gunna stop.

Lord Raziere

2020-12-31, 07:48 PM

Ignoring the obviously over-powered stuff, you have a paladin/blackguard variant. Pick one of the darker paladin subtypes.

No, too much healing and radiant.

Kane0

2020-12-31, 10:23 PM

No, too much healing and radiant.

Swap Radiant smite damage to Necrotic, with bonus vs Celestials and Fey instead of Undead and Fiends

Bless > Bane
Cure Wounds > Inflict Wounds
Heroism > Cause Fear
Aid > Ray of Enfeeblement
Aura of Vitality > Bestow Curse
Revivify > Animate Dead
Aura of Life > Sickening Radiance
Aura of Purity > Blight
Holy Weapon > Contagion
Raise Dead > Dance Macabre

Close enough?

Hytheter

2020-12-31, 10:30 PM

I don't think any of these hit the mark- the Dark Knight in that setting is really something like using 'evil' powers to protect others and defeat whoever's the wrongdoer, which the paladin's darker subclasses don't quite cover (and the hexblade's fluff even less due to the whole pact thing).

Just reflavour it. There hardly needs to a whole new class for "dark powers, but for good this time".

I would say that the specific interpretation of "Dark Knight" as depicted by one particular JRPG series is hardly a glaring omission in the game to begin with...

Amdy_vill

2020-12-31, 10:54 PM

debuff, like the whole thing.

Waterdeep Merch

2020-12-31, 11:19 PM

I'd like to see something with completely new mechanics, something I can't just get either through clever multiclassing or quick reskinning. Artificer scratched that itch, mystic did the few times I played it, and my disappointment with the current psionic subclasses is how similar they are to what's come before them. Being able to do something wholly new, and seeing how I can get that to interact with what's come before it.

I'd accept any concept, even retreads, so long as it sparks my imagination.

ThatoneGuy84

2020-12-31, 11:27 PM

Hm, fair. very well I'll explain it as simply as I can: This (https://www.finalfantasyd20.com/classes/base-classes/dark-knight/).

I really dont see how your couldnt cover most of what's here with a straight melee Warlock.

Dark knight also specifies some of its power comes from sources close to warlock, Abysal.

Nothing says that a dark knight couldnt have a pact with a big bad for the powers.

Consider it would also work with only 2 levels of Paladin (no oath taken) or if you want higher, Oath breaker. But I dont see either as actually needed. Straight Melee Warlock covers this pretty decently to me.

Valmark

2021-01-01, 05:12 AM

Just reflavour it. There hardly needs to a whole new class for "dark powers, but for good this time".

I would say that the specific interpretation of "Dark Knight" as depicted by one particular JRPG series is hardly a glaring omission in the game to begin with...

This thread is about concepts you can't cover without reflavour or at all, so saying "Just reflavour it" shows exactly why Raziere posted it I believe.

It would also take more then just reflavoring- paladin's features are obviously out and Hexblade use a bit too much magic and aren't sufficiently tanky, IMO. Kane0 does give a pretty good shot in switching those features if one were to look for 'soft' homebrew (i.e. not making a whole new class).

Hytheter

2021-01-01, 05:33 AM

This thread is about concepts you can't cover without reflavour or at all, so saying "Just reflavour it" shows exactly why Raziere posted it I believe.

The objection you raised and that I was responding to was solely flavour based, though.

Valmark

2021-01-01, 06:03 AM

The objection you raised and that I was responding to was solely flavour based, though.

Yes, and I replied to that.

Uhm, I probably shouldn't have tacked the second paragraph after the first as-is, it does seem like I'm replying specifically to you with the mechanics thing (is that what you mean?).

GeoffWatson

2021-01-01, 07:58 AM

If you want 100% accuracy you'd have to play Final Fantasy.

Otherwise, you'll have to accept some minor differences, so a melee Warlock or darkish Paladin (or multiclass) would be close.

diplomancer

2021-01-01, 12:22 PM

On that note, people should realize their favorite characters from [insert medium that's not D&D] aren't limited in ability scores by game balance concerns. Everyone with assumptions like "you can't pump both Dex and Str on one character" forget that while point buy is standard in AL and discussions on the internet due to balance, the default method of generating ability scores is rolling, and point buy (and standard array) are variant rules.

Standard array is not a variant rule, point-buy is. Yeah, I didn't know that either until a few months ago.

Magicspook

2021-01-01, 01:15 PM

Something I think is lacking is a class/subclass that deals with poisons. Like, why is the only thing facilitating a poison build a single feat and a single tool proficiency without any accompanying mehanics?

Also something awesome would be a ranged paladin build. Go full Hercules with smiting javelins!

MrStabby

2021-01-01, 02:54 PM

debuff, like the whole thing.

This isnt just something that is missing, but something almost forbidden to be effective.

Focussing explicitly on the spells that magic resistance and legendary saves will thwart would leave the class sat through a lot of fights doing pretty much nothing. Add in the richness of condition immunities and you are likely to have a character be a bit All or Nothing.

It would need some abilities that let you do things like change saves to ability checks or to do something even on a successful save.

We still then have the issue that you would have a class that could easily sidestep the ability of a boss monster to not be trivialised by a spell, leading to some pretty anticlimactic fights. Balancing this would be really, really hard. That said, if it could be done, I would love it.

WadeWay33

2021-01-01, 03:03 PM

debuff, like the whole thing.

I like this.

Waazraath

2021-01-01, 03:03 PM

Still, even after Tasha's:
- binders (3.5 subclass, including fluff/mechanic);
- non-caster shapechangers
- martial artist (combining grappling and unarmed fighting, with mystical but not overtly magical abilities)

Amnestic

2021-01-01, 03:08 PM

Truenamer :)

Waazraath

2021-01-01, 04:10 PM

Truenamer :)

Well, if they could get it working, it would be cool, no sarcasm here! I mean, at least that's an archtype/concept grounded in fantasy literature / pop culture. Unlike quite some subclasses I could mention. The fact that they messed up the rules in 3.5 doesn't mean the concept should be written off for all times afaic.

Kane0

2021-01-01, 04:21 PM

This isnt just something that is missing, but something almost forbidden to be effective.

Focussing explicitly on the spells that magic resistance and legendary saves will thwart would leave the class sat through a lot of fights doing pretty much nothing. Add in the richness of condition immunities and you are likely to have a character be a bit All or Nothing.

It would need some abilities that let you do things like change saves to ability checks or to do something even on a successful save.

We still then have the issue that you would have a class that could easily sidestep the ability of a boss monster to not be trivialised by a spell, leading to some pretty anticlimactic fights. Balancing this would be really, really hard. That said, if it could be done, I would love it.

Debuff conditions and effects are plentiful, its more the counters to them that pose an issue. I troducing some that rely on attacks rather than saves would probably go a long way, as well as some to take up the non-concentration and bonus action/reaction niches.

JackPhoenix

2021-01-01, 04:22 PM

Something I think is lacking is a class/subclass that deals with poisons. Like, why is the only thing facilitating a poison build a single feat and a single tool proficiency without any accompanying mehanics?

Well, you can always pick green dragon sorcerer, if you're masochistic enough...

Dienekes

2021-01-01, 04:33 PM

Well, if they could get it working, it would be cool, no sarcasm here! I mean, at least that's an archtype/concept grounded in fantasy literature / pop culture. Unlike quite some subclasses I could mention. The fact that they messed up the rules in 3.5 doesn't mean the concept should be written off for all times afaic.

Since skills, saves, and attacks are all theoretically based on the same growth curve it should be much easier to implement one in 5e without fiddling about with enemy CR.

The issue is that 5e is designed (for the worse in my opinion) around the expending of resources to be refreshed around short and long rests. And a key bit of Truenaming is unlimited use spells.

Mind you I really wish that 5e would move away from this balancing model. But they don’t seem to be, so getting a Truenamer might be a bit difficult.

Maybe they’ll make one a short rest dependent one.

Tanarii

2021-01-01, 04:35 PM

Dangerous magic with significant chance of headsplosion or demonic rending.

Valmark

2021-01-01, 04:40 PM

Since skills, saves, and attacks are all theoretically based on the same growth curve it should be much easier to implement one in 5e without fiddling about with enemy CR.

The issue is that 5e is designed (for the worse in my opinion) around the expending of resources to be refreshed around short and long rests. And a key bit of Truenaming is unlimited use spells.

Mind you I really wish that 5e would move away from this balancing model. But they don’t seem to be, so getting a Truenamer might be a bit difficult.

Maybe they’ll make one a short rest dependent one.

Well, it's not like we don't have any class/subclass with unlimited features so it would certainly be possible to keep the key parts of the Truenamer.

Dienekes

2021-01-01, 04:49 PM

Well, it's not like we don't have any class/subclass with unlimited features so it would certainly be possible to keep the key parts of the Truenamer.

I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of subclasses I admit. But my understanding is the ones that don’t are expected to be in the front line so their health becomes their limiting resource, or the unlimited features are either not the main offensive feature or somehow interact with a limited resource feature.

ezekielraiden

2021-01-01, 04:51 PM

The big ones that come to my mind, as a start:

Summoner, medieval style. Medieval European understanding of magic, as far as I know, was often "most or all of your magic consists of summoning, binding, and commanding demons/the dead/the Fae/other spirits to serve you." I don't see a good way to approach magic this way in D&D. Planar Binding exists at high levels, and you could always reskin a warlock or wizard's spells to be accomplished by tiny invisible spirits, for example, but that dynamic of needing to summon Mephistopheles or Bartimaeus or the gentleman with thistledown hair or Chaunzaggoroth or whoever into your presence to accomplish most or all of your serious magic seems out of reach.

Bond creature. Things like being bonded to a dragon or a Radiant spren are a pretty common trope, as far as I've seen, but D&D doesn't really support them. For obvious reasons, mind you, since it doesn't even handle the few kinds of companions it does support all that well and there are balance difficulties with implementing them, but still, it's a bit of uncovered conceptual space.

Thoughts?

I actually have a half-finished Summoner class writeup (and I really do mean half-finished, it's got a long way to go before it's even ready to put up for discussion) addressing this exact stuff. I was even able to come up with a term for your special summoned buddy that is (a) an actual English word, (b) NOT just a synonym of the PF version's term, and (c) actually more applicable than the PF term. I honestly still can't believe such a word existed, especially since it's not like a weird complex Latin term or something. (I mean, it is Latin in origin, but it's an ordinary English word, not a direct copy like "verbatim" or "et cetera.")

Valmark

2021-01-01, 05:10 PM

I don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of subclasses I admit. But my understanding is the ones that don’t are expected to be in the front line so their health becomes their limiting resource, or the unlimited features are either not the main offensive feature or somehow interact with a limited resource feature.

Neither of those actually- it's the rogue which, admittedly, is mostly unlimited. The capstone is once each rest and some subclasses have various amounts of features with limited uses (Xanathar and Tasha have increased this, out of the PHB only the AT has a feature with a limited use).

But the main features are definitely unlimited. Unfortunately given the direction they took with the rogue's subclasses following this philosophy we could at most expect a class with mixed unlimeted and limited features- which I would still accept, personally.

Dienekes

2021-01-01, 10:47 PM

Neither of those actually- it's the rogue which, admittedly, is mostly unlimited. The capstone is once each rest and some subclasses have various amounts of features with limited uses (Xanathar and Tasha have increased this, out of the PHB only the AT has a feature with a limited use).

But the main features are definitely unlimited. Unfortunately given the direction they took with the rogue's subclasses following this philosophy we could at most expect a class with mixed unlimeted and limited features- which I would still accept, personally.

That’s fair I didn’t think about Rogue. Though I will say their main feature is mostly just a way to keep pace with the damage of other martials and it gets left behind eventually in dps. And the rest of their core class abilities are either out of combat stuff or niche effects that a caster could do at much earlier level. And subclasses often don’t fair much better though there are some gems.

It’s not quite the model I think people who want a good Truenamor would like. But who knows maybe it’s design can be an inspiration to some.

Joe the Rat

2021-01-02, 01:37 AM

A couple of suggestions

Lightly armored swordmasters is a genre convention that does not mesh well with D&D armor without some sort of unarmored defense function (a literal AC proficiency, for example). Better addessed as a rule option than class design. Agile armored swordsman could be fair dex, and Acrobatics proficiency.

Deck casting really just needs a card deck spell focus - which could broadly cover runecasting and the like. Then you can just roll with the Divination wizard cartomancer. Hucksters (the Deadlands "poker wizards") are summoners, in the medieval/Bartimaeus/pokemon sense.

The Dungeon Crawl Classics magic system fits better for gambling or unstable power casting - roll for levels of effect available, and be prepared to eat torment and mutation if you botch it.

Thematically Warlock can cover the binding spirit angle (and bits of the Binder floof, if not the mechanics). Instead of a big secrets and power doling entity, you got one small spirit. Having Oaths and growing power is a matter of roleplay, not mechanics. Current design is to not screw your players out of their abilities as a mechanical feature.

Necrosnoop110

2021-01-02, 01:19 PM

5e is designed (for the worse in my opinion) around the expending of resources to be refreshed around short and long rests.
Why the worse? And hasn't resource management been part of the game since forever?

Dienekes

2021-01-02, 03:07 PM

Why the worse? And hasn't resource management been part of the game since forever?

Because it limits other potential resource management systems.

Just for example, I played both the Warblade and a Battlemaster in two different campaigns simultaneously. And I came to the conclusion the Battlemaster is just a far less interesting to play Warblade.

The main differences being:

1) The Battlemaster maneuvers are just at a base level mechanically less interesting.

2) Tome of Battle's in combat maneuver refresh system creates a far more dynamic play pattern that is just more fun. Where you can't just spam the best ability over and over again, but can get them back in combat if you feel you need them. It's a great system that is incompatible to the game as long as everything is At-Will/Short Rest/Long Rest dependent.

Unfortunately ToB is tied to 3.5 so the Warblade in question became pretty irrelevant next to the Cleric and Druid in the party unless I was buffing them. But the actual round per round gameplay? So much better.

That's the most obvious example to me. But in general any more interesting refresh mechanic is incompatible with 5e as it is currently designed around. The classes are balanced -as much as they are- around a set number of rounds of combat between short rests leading up to a long rest. Bringing in classes that don't really follow that paradigm wrecks that balance so I do not think WotC will likely do it.

This is all the more glaring an issue when it seems to me, most people that I've played or read about who actually play the game don't really follow the guidelines of X encounters per Short/Long Rest anyway.

So in total: It is not an interesting refresh mechanic in the first place. It balances around a structure that does not exist for many playing groups anyway. And it limits the creativity of official content.

Ettina

2021-01-02, 03:31 PM

Bond creature. Things like being bonded to a dragon or a Radiant spren are a pretty common trope, as far as I've seen, but D&D doesn't really support them. For obvious reasons, mind you, since it doesn't even handle the few kinds of companions it does support all that well and there are balance difficulties with implementing them, but still, it's a bit of uncovered conceptual space.

This homebrew class is an awesome approach to this archetype:

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-M-sgaPGkhiONP9kk1Il

One that I'd really like but have no idea how to balance is a spellcaster who drains their own abilities (hp, ability scores, etc) to power spells. Like the classic "casting from health bar" class idea in many video games, or the way using too much of his power nerfs Denki Kaminari's intelligence for awhile, or how mages in the Tortall series can fall unconscious or even die if they commit too hard to casting. D&D 3.5 had a Call of Cthulhu-esque variant spellcasting rulebook that worked like that, and there's a few ways in 5e that you can cast better by spending hp, but mostly this archetype is completely unrepresented. Probably because it'd be a nightmare to balance alongside spellcasters who don't have this drawback.

Amdy_vill

2021-01-02, 05:34 PM

Why the worse? And hasn't resource management been part of the game since forever?

So background first, I have been playing for 10 years and have played every edition outside of adnd 1e.

So not really, outside of 4e and 5e most editions don't have expendable resources outside of spells and one or two abilities like channel divinity(I should clarify that we are talking about key/ major abilities. things like rage, thou rage is one of the abilities that is an exception. Wild shape and smite evil for druid and paladin are the other two big exceptions to this. also prior to 2e abilities outside of the 2-4 you got at level 1 are almost unheard of.). generally in earlier editions only spell casters had to focus on resource management. I think the permanent class changes are a better idea personally. the best example I can give is a summoner from pathfinder. you would never see a class like this in 5e because almost all of its abilities are permanent always on. Resource management is a game element that can be good but 5e doesn't hit the mark on it. it's often too easy or too hard to recover resources depending on the game.

this is because of the limited way of regaining resources. the only options are short and long rest. most games with resource management would have 3-6 major ways of regaining baseline resources, then several other ways, Think catnap but a bunch of them. scrolls the give you long rest and so on. I hope 6e goes back to permanent abilities or makes the resources management a real focus.

Gignere

2021-01-02, 05:50 PM

That’s fair I didn’t think about Rogue. Though I will say their main feature is mostly just a way to keep pace with the damage of other martials and it gets left behind eventually in dps. And the rest of their core class abilities are either out of combat stuff or niche effects that a caster could do at much earlier level. And subclasses often don’t fair much better though there are some gems.

It’s not quite the model I think people who want a good Truenamor would like. But who knows maybe it’s design can be an inspiration to some.

This isn’t really true rogue’s DPR is actually as good as any melee/physical DPR except for the SS/CBE and PAM/GWM builds. In actual play probably exceed it.

The kicker is that their DPR is not really reduced by range or melee no matter which way they focused.

Given their ability to skirmish they actually spend less time spending actions to either get rid of debuff and/or heal. For example last game our Paladin tank was engulfed for 2 rounds and boy did his DPR take a hit whereas I was just jumping in and out with bonus action disengages and just pumping out DPR nonstop.

In a second fight we managed to trap the BBEG in a spike growth and the Paladin was reduced to throwing javelins, whereas I was just pumping out sneak attacks with my backup cross bow without even missing a beat.

KorvinStarmast

2021-01-02, 07:04 PM

Because it limits other potential resource management systems.
Let me address this from the perspective of an engineer: when you develop a new thing, you don't have infinite budget. You then make a series of decisions (which should take into account the customer's requirements!) that leave you with a finite number of options for what to design. I think that you may be asking a bit much for infinite resource management systems; they had to make some design choices, and so they made them and pressed on.

Put another way, I think that your position may be in the same family of problems that fit into "the perfect is the enemy of the good" - since the 'customer requirement' in a case like an RPG isn't a well defined requirements document. It's a pile of "I like this" statements.

That said, I am still not sure that their SR/LR mechanical implementation got enough scrubs. They seem to have wanted to import some of the 4e at will, encounter, daily, etc ability template, and this is what they ended up with.

Ninjadeadbeard

2021-01-02, 07:10 PM

Gignere

2021-01-02, 07:14 PM

Hexblade. Just max Charisma, and sprinkle in enough Dex and Con to survive melee, and you're golden.

Monk. Kensei is neat, but with the new Optional Tasha stuff, you can get a longsword at level 2 as a monk weapon. Only need a level or two, then go Battlemaster for maneuvers or pick up a feat to get them.

Barbarian. Just barbarian. No real cheese here. Pick up a greatsword and treat your HP as Luck instead of Meat.

I think part of the problem is that these were quite powerful characters in their worlds/story so it is just about impossible to model that accurately in the 5e system. I think the closest you’ll get is a switch hitting champion maybe with 16 in strength and dex. MAM with both defense and archery styles eventually.

Biggest problem is that most systems don’t support switch hitting, and specializations eventually wins out.

Ninjadeadbeard

2021-01-02, 07:39 PM

I think part of the problem is that these were quite powerful characters in their worlds/story so it is just about impossible to model that accurately in the 5e system. I think the closest you’ll get is a switch hitting champion maybe with 16 in strength and dex. MAM with both defense and archery styles eventually.

Biggest problem is that most systems don’t support switch hitting, and specializations eventually wins out.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Sorry.

Dienekes

2021-01-02, 08:25 PM

Let me address this from the perspective of an engineer: when you develop a new thing, you don't have infinite budget. You then make a series of decisions (which should take into account the customer's requirements!) that leave you with a finite number of options for what to design. I think that you may be asking a bit much for infinite resource management systems; they had to make some design choices, and so they made them and pressed on.

Put another way, I think that your position may be in the same family of problems that fit into "the perfect is the enemy of the good" - since the 'customer requirement' in a case like an RPG isn't a well defined requirements document. It's a pile of "I like this" statements.

That said, I am still not sure that their SR/LR mechanical implementation got enough scrubs. They seem to have wanted to import some of the 4e at will, encounter, daily, etc ability template, and this is what they ended up with.

I would agree if I thought Short Rest / Long Rest actually counts as good. It's functional, but that's about as far as I'll give it. It does not have the flexibility and potential for innovation that 3.5s lack of a rigid system allowed. Nor is it as consistent as 4es at-will, encounter, daily ability split that it was obviously aping.

The end result is that WotC decided to balance around a system that is actually pretty limited in how far you can stretch it in terms of actual play. Which a not insignificant number of time results in issues as player's of short and long rest focused classes can be at odds with the pacing of the game.

Like whether or not it has happened to any individual personally, we've all seen posts about player's issues with short rest classes getting passed over in a group of long rest classes that go nuclear for their five minute workday. Or just feel like they're messing up the flow of the game asking to short rest after every encounter or two because they're out of ways to meaningfully contribute. And while we can advise how to avoid these situations that tension is baked into the rules as is. And I think that's a mistake.

Spartan_MD

2021-01-04, 02:08 AM

Thinking about this concept, because it is close to my heart...

Edit: I've been playing around with a "swordmaster" build for a while that uses Kensai 3 to get Dex to Longsword, then multiclasses into Ranger for more brute fighting prowess and Wis-synergy casting where the spells known are used to improve the core skills (e.g. Hunter's Mark, Zaphyr Strike). Not exactly what you describe but possibly adjacent.

Can you post pls?

Pinkie Pyro

2021-01-04, 06:10 AM

Eldan

2021-01-04, 06:22 AM

I say this every time the topic comes up and I'll keep saying it: a dedicated shapeshifter. I think one of the main reasons that's not already a thing is it's hard to balance right. There's a reason it's mostly in the realm of high level spells and why druids are limited to beasts withing certain thresholds. But I think it would fit in just fine. Though 5e's subclass system makes it a bit awkward. Maybe one subclass focused on manipulating your own body and another focused on changing form entirely. A third could go the were-beast/hengeyokai route and focus on a "single" alternate that changes your regular form and has a hybrid with its own benefits.

I'd probably base this on 3.5's alternate shapeshift druid. Basically, a druid who can shapeshift at will, but instead of like the normal druid getting the entire stats and abilities of a base animal, they'd get stat bonuses. It was then left to the player to fluff what those stat bonuses mean. I.e. you'd start with a "predator form" that gives a strength bonus and a natural weapon and then the player decides whether that is a wolf, or a panther, or a small bear, whatever fits their druid. THen there's a higher level "winged predator" form, and a tanky "large herbivore" form and then later on things like "elemental form" and so on.

Make a list of basic forms, some utility forms like "harmless small flier" or "swimming animal" for scouting and let them choose forms from a list like spells.

Amnestic

2021-01-04, 06:27 AM

Unless I'm mistaken, a reason for a rogue to dual wield. two weapon rogues have been a thing forever, and with sneak attack applying only once per round, there's not much reason to bother with the hassle. Like, making it so offhand sneak attacks do d4s or whatever. something.

With only one attack per turn (Rogues don't get extra attack unless they multiclass, which hits their SA progression), dual wielding doubles your chance of hitting, and therefore getting a sneak attack to land. There's alternative options of course, but dual wield is a reasonable option for rogues. At the very least it's unlikely they're using their empty hand for anything else usually, so it costs them very little to have a second weapon on hand if the opportunity comes up and you're not using your BA for something else.

Morty

2021-01-04, 06:34 AM

Most games I’ve seen that do allow it, either make Fighting it’s own stat or divide their Strength and Dexterity stats up so both are if not necessary then heavily nudged toward when making a melee combatant.

5e as a whole seems to want to simply math and character creation so you only really need to focus on one stat for everything.

And it makes sense why, it would be odd in a game where ability score increases are so restrictively doled out to have some classes only rely on one stat to do all their casting or attacking needs while another needs to focus on two to be offensive plus the usual needs of constitution for survival.

And the obvious answer: create a fighter subclass that values both, has to ask how they will be valued. It can’t stray too far from bounded accuracy so a lot of the go to solutions the game sets up to portray ability scores affecting success are not available. Try to make different abilities with the subclass that require both Str and Dex and you’re more likely to get the player base to only focus on half the subclass for most the game and only bother with the rest at the higher later levels when they have ASIs to spare and no feats they’d rather take instead. And honestly a character concept that does not come online until level 12 or so is not a particularly well designed implementation of such a basic fantasy concept.

Dumping ability scores and giving some distinct benefits of wearing light, medium and heavy armor would probably solve this problem handily.

Magicspook

2021-01-04, 12:28 PM

Evaar

2021-01-04, 01:47 PM

Dumping ability scores and giving some distinct benefits of wearing light, medium and heavy armor would probably solve this problem handily.

Can you expand? Not sure I understand what you mean.

Kane0

2021-01-04, 02:10 PM

Unless I'm mistaken, a reason for a rogue to dual wield. two weapon rogues have been a thing forever, and with sneak attack applying only once per round, there's not much reason to bother with the hassle. Like, making it so offhand sneak attacks do d4s or whatever. something.

Yeah I noticed that a while back when looking at TWF as a whole. Try this for the Dual Wielder feat:

- You can add your ability modifier to the damage of your off hand attacks
- You can use two-weapon fighting as part of the attack action instead of using a bonus action. If you do so you cannot also use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn.
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can also make an attack using your off hand against the same target

And because i moved the stat to damage into the feat the Style gets the non-light weapons that the feat used to have. So classes that don’t get TWF style natively (paladin, barbarian, rogue, warlock) might still be interested in TWF as it’s only the difference between a d6/d8 and a d8/d10 weapon.

KorvinStarmast

2021-01-04, 02:20 PM

Dumping ability scores ... isn't going to happen in this game. Ability Scores are baked into it.

Other game systems may be a better choice for what you are proposing.

Morty

2021-01-04, 02:27 PM

Can you expand? Not sure I understand what you mean.

If we didn't have ability scores, martial characters wouldn't be stuck having to focus on either strength or dexterity instead of both, as most actual warriors and martial artists would do. If we didn't want to drop ability scores entirely, decoupling to-hit bonuses from them might help martial characters spread their attributes a bit more freely. With the way ability scores work right now, there's no real way around this problem.

... isn't going to happen in this game. Ability Scores are baked into it.

Other game systems may be a better choice for what you are proposing.

It's actually quite easy to accomplish in 5E. It's been done (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/t6ZY1vfhN) before.

KorvinStarmast

2021-01-04, 02:33 PM

It's actually quite easy to accomplish in 5E. It's been done (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/t6ZY1vfhN) before. If you want to play a different edition, or a different game, by all means do so. That's what that homebrew document represents. That said, it is certainly organized and it does remind me, a touch, of what 13th age tried to do by mixing 3.5 and 4e features.

I have no confidence that that system, since it also has to roll over to apply to NPCs and Monsters, isn't full of holes.

For example, it is useless for Jumping, among other things. (See rules on Jumping)

Morty

2021-01-04, 02:35 PM

If you want to play a different edition, or a different game, by all means do so. That's what that homebrew document represents. That said, it is certainly organized and it does remind me, a touch, of what 13th age tried to do.

I have no confidence that that system, since it also has to roll over to apply to NPCs and Monsters, isn't full of holes.

I'm not sure why "how could the game be modified to allow for the concepts it can't do as is" isn't a valid topic of discussion. The document I linked doesn't need to change monsters and NPCs in any way whatsoever - you just keep all their numbers exactly as they are.

KorvinStarmast

2021-01-04, 02:38 PM

I'm not sure why "how could the game be modified to allow for the concepts it can't do as is" isn't a valid topic of discussion. The document I linked doesn't need to change monsters and NPCs in any way whatsoever - you just keep all their numbers exactly as they are.
Have you play tested it? (I did not say it was not a valid topic of discussion, but to a greater extent than some other homebrew, it is well outside of the scope of this editions basic framewor. Also, please see the edit I made while you were composing your reply). A lot of people like the Will/Fortidude/Reflex save system better than 5e's system. Heck, I prefer the original tables (OD&D nad AD&D 1e) where all of your saves got better as you went up in level. In that respect, the save improvement I prefer is somewhat reflected in that homebrew document.

(And FWIW, it perpetuates the same error (IMHO) that chapter 7 does, which is to put acrobatics and athletics on the same footing, i.e, 'Dex is the super stat!' :smalltongue: )

Morty

2021-01-04, 02:47 PM

Have you play tested it? (I did not say it was not a valid topic of discussion, but to a greater extent than some other homebrew, it is well outside of the scope of this editions basic framewor. Also, please see the edit I made while you were composing your reply). A lot of people like the Will/Fortidude/Reflex save system better than 5e's system. Heck, I prefer the original tables (OD&D nad AD&D 1e) where all of your saves got better as you went up in level. In that respect, the save improvement I prefer is somewhat reflected in that homebrew document.

(And FWIW, it perpetuates the same error (IMHO) that chapter 7 does, which is to put acrobatics and athletics on the same footing, i.e, 'Dex is the super stat!' :smalltongue: )

It keeps the characters' numbers at the same level as they would with ability scores in place, but with more freedom. Ability scores really aren't as important as you claim. And their removal would improve the game - for example, by allowing one of the concepts brought up in this thread.

KorvinStarmast

2021-01-04, 02:56 PM

Ability scores really aren't as important as you claim. If you can go back to where I claimed that "ability scores are important" I'd appreciate it.

What I said, quite explicitly, was that Ability Scores Are Baked Into The Game. That was a deliberate design choice. And I'll give the design team a little credit here: it was a design choice informed by 40 years of the RPG hobby to pick from for ideas that went beyond the ability scores being baked in from the original game (1974).

It's not like major changes weren't done over time. (If you'd like to see how HP concepts changed over time, I've got a reasonably thorough treatment of that here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/108501/22566)).

Back to stats: there was a substantial paradigm shift with WoTC era D&D vis a vis the increases in stat scores as one progressed in level. (The first I remember seeing that in AD&D was in the Unearthed Arcana book with the Cavalier who got to roll percentile dice on level up and when enough percentile rolls added up to 100, the stat bumped by 1...).

I am not sure if the "2.5" (Player Option) AD&D had Ability score increases with level, since I had nearly stopped playing at that point due to RL stuff. I had certainly stopped buying books. (Didn't get 3.x books until my nephew was old enough to play and try his hand at DMing. At that point, 3.5 was the edition, so I get the core books. )

I would agree if I thought Short Rest / Long Rest actually counts as good. It's functional, but that's about as far as I'll give it. And I said

That said, I am still not sure that their SR/LR mechanical implementation got enough scrubs. It appears that we are in violent agreement on that game feature. :smallbiggrin:

Asisreo1

2021-01-04, 04:59 PM

Luccan

2021-01-04, 05:22 PM

I've always wanted a blood sorcerer because I've always liked the idea of endangering yourself for the sake of power mixed with the occult nature of blood magic.

I also want a dancer-type bard that can do their spellcasting silently through dance. This one is technically possible RAW but its not the same when you still make vocal components.

I'd been working on a 3.5 version of that inspired by my frustrations with the Battledancer not being a dance bard class from Dragon Compendium. I may or may not have notes that could be useful to the concept, I'll have to check. I will say one problem with the concept is the silent spellcasting as a core feature. They sort of did that for Aberrant Mind, but even that has a cost.

Morty

2021-01-04, 05:30 PM

If you can go back to where I claimed that "ability scores are important" I'd appreciate it.

What I said, quite explicitly, was that Ability Scores Are Baked Into The Game. That was a deliberate design choice. And I'll give the design team a little credit here: it was a design choice informed by 40 years of the RPG hobby to pick from for ideas that went beyond the ability scores being baked in from the original game (1974).

You say they're "baked in". If that doesn't mean they're important, I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean, but I'm also not terribly eager to get into semantic arguments. And I've shown you that they can be un-baked from the game with minimum fuss. Universal proficiency bonuses and caps on ability scores mean it's easy to predict how good a character is going to be in different areas of focus. And doing so would open up more than one concept - like, say, a character who uses a two-handed weapon while wearing light armor and using whichever non-combat skills tickle their fancy.

Pinkie Pyro

2021-01-04, 10:04 PM

How about doubling the chance to apply sneak attack? If you attack only once, there is a good chance you miss and deal 0 damage. By attacking twice, you minimise the chance of missing out on sneak attack.

which uses your bonus action, and requires a feat to use effectively. A 1 level dip in monk gets you a bonus attack with a dagger/shortsword *and* proficiencies, 2 gets you bonus movement, two extra attacks, lets you use whatever finesse weapon you want with tashas...

For like 1d6 sneak attack trade off. or only trading the capstone for the 1 level dip, and capstones don't realistically matter at all, so it lets you frontload better.

Luccan

2021-01-04, 11:22 PM

Asisreo1

2021-01-05, 12:55 AM

Being a level or more behind on your "thing" (sneak attack, casting, extra attack) is generally not ideal, at least from an optimization standpoint. Ability bonuses outstrip proficiency bonuses for the majority of the game as well, so you'll do fine even without the feat for a good chunk of the game. And Martial Arts only lets you bonus attack with Unarmed Strike, which is still equal to a dagger, a thing you can already wield. You also won't gain any weapon proficiencies you don't already have, because that's not how the Tasha's feature that lets you count other things as monk weapons works.
From an optimization standpoint, you probably wouldn't have much of a singular "thing." Min-maxing is different, though.

See, I'm an optimizer. To me, optimizing builds is less than half the equation, though. The more important part of optimization is how you play your character. However, your build does constitute what's an optimal strategy. Thing is, having a diverse set of abilities is much better than having a singular ability, because allocating an all-or-nothing approach to your one ability could leave you deficient in the situations where your ability is inapplicable.

So for me, I typically play non-variant human because they tend to work out fairly well for the optimizer in me. Technically, most classes are MAD in some ways. The only exception would be the Rogue which can do okay solely on dex and constitution.

Casters have their casting mod and dex & con. Fighters, Barbs, Monks, and Paladins have some tertiary stat that could use a boost. Yes, even fighters since the versatility in having somewhat decent strength AND dexterity allows a fighter to have high AC with 15 str (17-20 AC) while also having +3 in dexterity and also having constitution around +2 constitution.

To give persepctive, in a fight they can do 9 damage per hit in melee, 7.5 damage at range of up to 150ft, AC of 18 (20 w shield), and starting HP of 12. This is an extremely versatile and competent fighter, one that cannot exist with a +2/+1 spread.

At 4th level, assume both have +4 dex. If they both decided to take strength 15, then the human has 39 HP while the elf or whatever has 32 HP. Now, you may be thinking that the elf could instead use their ASI for 18 dex and 14 con to match the human fighter, but they aren't matched at all. The human fighter has a 13 in a different ability which opens up feats, multiclassing, or half-feats later down the line. The human fighter is still more versatile overall.

But at level 6, the elf gets a leg up if they went 19 strength, right? Not exactly. True, they can then boost their str and now do more melee damage than their human counterpart, but the human still has more health in this situation. Now, the elf fighter does more damage but isn't as sturdy as the human fighter. At that point, it can be up to taste but the feats, multiclassing, and half-feat availability should still be kept in mind.

Amnestic

2021-01-05, 04:04 AM

which uses your bonus action, and requires a feat to use effectively. A 1 level dip in monk gets you a bonus attack with a dagger/shortsword *and* proficiencies, 2 gets you bonus movement, two extra attacks, lets you use whatever finesse weapon you want with tashas...

For like 1d6 sneak attack trade off. or only trading the capstone for the 1 level dip, and capstones don't realistically matter at all, so it lets you frontload better.

Though I personally disagree with the design behind it and house rule it away, you cannot sneak attack with your monk unarmed strike, and monk BA attack is only with Unarmed Strike.

Monk PHB Entry for Martial Arts:

• When you use the Attack action with an Unarmed Strike or a monk weapon on Your Turn, you can make one Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action. For example, if you take the Attack action and Attack with a Quarterstaff, you can also make an Unarmed Strike as a Bonus Action, assuming you haven't already taken a Bonus Action this turn.

Tasha's just expands the list of monk weapons, it doesn't let you use them in place of an unarmed strike on your BA.

You also don't need a feat to effectively TWF as a rogue. I'm unsure if you're referring to the fighting style feat or Dual Wielder, but neither are required, or potentially even desirable if there's other options on the table.

Dual Wielder gives you +1 AC and lets you dual wield rapiers (which give you a +1 average damage per hit over your shortswords). The fighting style feat lets you add dex to damage on the second attack.

While the AC is nice on a rogue, they need neither of these. The secondary attack's damage is, frankly, not the important part, it's the second chance to land sneak attack. Yes, it's nice, no doubt about that, but the core is trying to land SA, and neither feat give any help towards that.

Hytheter

2021-01-05, 08:57 AM

Tasha's just expands the list of monk weapons, it doesn't let you use them in place of an unarmed strike on your BA.

Tasha's adds Ki Fueled Strike, which can conditionally allow a BA weapon attack if you spend ki as part of your action. Focused Aim and Kensei's Deft Strike can both trigger this, for example.

Amnestic

2021-01-05, 09:12 AM

Tasha's adds Ki Fueled Strike, which can conditionally allow a BA weapon attack if you spend ki as part of your action. Focused Aim and Kensei's Deft Strike can both trigger this, for example.

Focused Aim and Kensei's Deft Strike require 5 and 6 levels of monk respectively. Not sure I'd class that as a dip.

I'm not saying you get nothing in return for it - you do, for sure - but if your goal is to be able to attack on a bonus action to try to grab an extra chance of SA, I'm pretty sure "buying a dagger" is cheaper than 5-6 levels of monk.

JoeJ

2021-01-05, 03:54 PM

What fantasy character concepts can you think of that aren't covered by the class options in D&D 5e, specifically the standard ones from WotC? Either directly (e.g. "you could refluff this other thing to be X but it isn't the default flavor") or at all ("there is no way to play X").

Context: I've been doing some setting building in the back of my head and I'm wondering, say, what kinds of magic/concepts I've forgotten to think about because I've been playing 5e for a long time and my brain is stuck there. And yes, I am also interested if something that's brought up is more nicely covered in some third-party supplement or another system altogether.

My two big ones are:

1) Elemental specialist wizard (or other spellcaster). Even evil elemental evil cultists can't seem to manage having more than about 2/3 of their spells be related to their element.

2) A martial artist who is not a religious contemplative. Mechanically this isn't a problem, but the default flavor is faux Shaolin monk which (in both reality and fiction) covers only a very tiny fraction of expert unarmed fighters. It's also a flavor that does not easily fit into a European-derived setting. (Unlike, for example, a pankrationist-type arena fighter or a champion wrestler.)

KorvinStarmast

2021-01-05, 04:30 PM

My two big ones are:

1) Elemental specialist wizard (or other spellcaster). Even evil elemental evil cultists can't seem to manage having more than about 2/3 of their spells be related to their element. Elemental Adept feat: not good enough? It can be taken multiple times. On the practical side, I must ask: what good is specializing in frost or fire when you run into frost or fire immune creatures? Wizards are generalists for good reasons.

2) A martial artist who is not a religious contemplative. Genre Check: Swords and Sorcery. :smallbiggrin:
That jest aside
: a pankrationist-type arena fighter or a champion wrestler concept ought to fit if a Shaolin Emulation (D&D Monk) fits.

JoeJ

2021-01-05, 06:26 PM

Elemental Adept feat: not good enough? It can be taken multiple times. On the practical side, I must ask: what good is specializing in frost or fire when you run into frost or fire immune creatures? Wizards are generalists for good reasons.

Good enough? Not really. It doesn't do anything about the lack of subclass features for elementalists, or increase the number and variety of elemental spells available. (Which is actually part of a larger problem, namely that the wizard class requires choosing a specialist subclass, but doesn't support specialization through the available spells.)

Elemental specialization doesn't just mean blasting with that element. There are already some elemental spells that buff allies, debuff enemies, or alter the battlefield. There could easily be many more.

Kane0

2021-01-05, 07:43 PM

Valmark

2021-01-05, 07:58 PM

Re elementalist; Fire is too easy, let's see if we can do some of the others

Water: Shape Water, Create or Destroy Water, Wall of Water, Tidal Wave
Earth: Magic Stone, Earth Tremor, Earthen Grasp, Erupting Earth, Mold Earth, Earthbind, Meld into Stone, stone shape
Air: Thunderclap, Thunderwave, Gust of Wind, Wind Wall, Gust, Fog Cloud, Warding Wind, Gaseous Form

Earth is pretty well covered if you have a DM that allows you to modify your spell list, Water and Air have a good start but need some extras or refluffing to really fill it out.

For Water we have Maelstrom (I love this spell), Control Water, Water Breathing, Water Walk and Tsunami too.

For Earth there are Stone Wall and Earthquake too.

For Air we have Control Winds and Wind Walk too. If we want to add thunder stuff too... Destructive Wave.

Unfortunately these are all spells that single classed characters don't all have access to (unsure if a bard could get them all for an element).

I wonder where Ice Storm, Sleet Storm and Storm of Vengeance might fall.

EDIT: And of course with Transmute spell one can easily change the elements- or with a Scribe wizard.
I wonder if spells like Alter Self used to get an acquatic form count- probably not.

RE-EDIT: Ice Knife! It requires water. And the various Conjure Elemental spells. Armor of Agathys requires water too.

Grey Watcher

2021-01-05, 10:44 PM

I feel like I should clarify what I meant by the game lacking an elementalist specialization for Wizards. I'm not saying that, as a player you can't build a Wizard who specializes in fire, wind, ice, or whatever (it is 99% spell selection, after all). I was looking at it more from a DM's/worldbuilder's perspective. That is, if you have a setting that doesn't divide magic up into the standard D&D schools (abjuration, necromancy, etc.) it's kind of awkward that, with the exception of a couple of subclasses (like War Wizard), the Wizard has to use those 8 schools.

Let's say you're building a setting based on the Might and Magic series (let's go with 6, specifically), where magic is broken up into schools by element. In the original game, Fireball and Haste are in the same school of magic (Fire Magic, duh). But in the default D&D magic system, they're in different schools. So, short of homebrewing up a set of Wizard Schools that matches the cosmology, you can't offer your players mechanics consistent with the lore.

I feel like, if you want to do something with your worldbuilding like "Clerics are specifically priests of civilization and are in opposition to Druids who oppose the expansion of civilization, you can just line item veto the Nature Domain. Same is true if, say, you don't want gishes in your setting: just leave Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster on the shelf. But Wizards have the default fluff of the schools of magic so heavily baked in that it requires a lot of effort if you don't want to use that. (They are getting better: the aforementioned War Wizard, the Chronomancer [or whatever it's properly called] help a lot.)

Looking at it from a player perspective, there's not a lot I don't feel like I can build. Sure, some things are a lot harder than others (to borrow Final Fantasy terminology, a Sage is harder to do without either losing out on a lot of high level magic or bringing along a lot of off-brand class features, like Bardic Inspiration), but they're generally doable in some form.

Sception

2021-01-06, 10:34 AM

Not a missing narrative concept, but I'd really like to see a dedicated pet class, especially post Tasha's now that we finally have a working framework for summons/pets in 5e that works & is fun to play with without dramatically unbalancing the game or dragging out combat time.

Yes, there are several subclasses that do this decently now - including the battlesmith and the tasha-revised beastmaster, but being subclasses limits the amount of complexity and interaction that can be built into the pet since they're being attached to what is otherwise a whole entire character. A pet class, where the pet is built into the class and subclasses are more about what kind of pet you have or what secondary abilities you bring along with it rather than whether you have a pet to begin with, could do a lot more with the mechanical tools now available.

Thematically this could be about anything - a summoner, a necromancer, a frankensteinian necrotechnician, a beastmaster with a more beastly beast - maybe some sort of dragon rider or the like. Narratively those concepts are all at least somewhat covered by other classes, admittedly, but again this is more about a mechanical opening rather than a narrative one.