If you could redo the classes/subclasses, how/which ones would you make?

[Greywander]

If you were to throw out all existing classes and subclasses and build new ones from scratch, which classes would you make, and what would your design principles be?

What makes sense to me would be for classes to be designed primarily around a mechanical identity. With this in mind, there would probably be fewer classes, but subclasses might have a greater impact on your build. It's a good chance there might be only one full caster class, with subclasses differentiating between wizards and clerics and such. So a Mage class would probably be built exclusively around spellcasting. In 5e, spellcasting takes up almost all of the design space of a class, affording only a scant few additional features, most of which are already found in the subclass. If subclasses play a bigger role, then possibly everything that isn't spellcasting could be relegated to subclasses.

In addition to a Mage class, I could also see having a half caster class and a non-caster class, but I'm unsure what would fill in the gap. A warrior class and a skill monkey class might make sense, but those could just as easily fall to subclasses. I almost feel like I would want to develop a strong, central mechanic that would dominate the design of that class, not unlike spellcasting does for casters. As such, there might not be a half caster class after all, but maybe some subclasses might include half casting.

Another idea I think would be neat would be to specifically build subclasses in such a way that they are interchangeable, meaning that they're not restricted to specific classes. Already in 5e you can find some instances where this almost works: a lot of classes get subclass features at the same levels, and a lot of subclass features don't rely on an existing class mechanic (and so could be applied to any class). That said, this would limit the design potential of classes, since they could no longer interconnect with the main class features. For example, it would make sense for Mage-exclusive subclasses to provide their own spell lists, but that wouldn't make much sense if you used the same subclass on a non-caster. Though this might tie into the idea of some subclasses providing half casting, while other subclasses might give partial access to the core mechanic of a different class.

Alternatively, instead of subclasses, you could just convert subclass features into feats, and let the players build their own "subclass" by granting them extra feats instead of subclass features. This allows for a more free-form style, opening up a lot more build options, but would be trickier to balance.

Hmm, a while back, I was working on developing a flexible "adventurer" class. You would choose a primary specialization, acting as your class, and a secondary specialization, acting as your subclass. Your three options for both were Might, Cunning, and Mystery. Mystery was a straightforward caster. Might was a kind of haphazard mishmash of mostly fighter abilities. Cunning was probably the most interesting. It was a mix of rogue and non-caster bard, getting things like Sneak Attack, Expertise, Jack of All Trades, and such. But it was built around a sort of core mechanic, which was a modified version of Bardic Inspiration. I expanded the list of things you could do with it, and refluffed it as you being especially clever and having planned things out in advance. It wasn't the entire class, but you could probably expand on the general concept into a class that is built entirely around roll manipulation. This would, in turn, naturally lean toward a skill monkey persuasion, especially if regaining your resources was fairly easy outside of combat (since ability checks are most of the rolls you make outside of combat). A dice manipulation class also sounds like it could also mesh with the Battle Master, since that's essentially what superiority dice are.

Huh, I kind of want to actually try to do this now. I most mostly just asking in a hypothetical sense, but I'm starting to get some concrete ideas I might be able to actually build into something.

[Pex]

Barbarian unarmored AC would be 10 + ST or DX modifier + CO modifier.

Spellcasters may concentrate on more than one spell as the levels progress - half proficiency bonus rounded down in number is fine. Concentration checks are made for each spell separately.

Bards may use Countersong as a reaction. Expend and roll a Bardic Inspiration die and have it add to everyone's saving throw. It stacks if a character already has a Bardic Inspiration die and uses it.

All Sorcerers get bonus spells based on bloodline. They can be swapped for specific appropriate school spells. Draconic would be wizard evocation or transmutation spells for example. Sorcery points may be recovered on a short rest.

[Glorthindel]

I would certainly take a hammer to a few classes and sprinkle their remains across the other classes as subclasses. For example, the Ranger's iconic features could be broken up into "scout", "skirmisher" and "beastmaster" packages, and handed to the Rogue, Fighter, and Druid consecutively (and if I was being brutal, I could see doing the same to the Barbarian, Bard, and maybe at a push the Paladin). In a similar vein, the Sorcerer lacks enough of a niche, and i would reimagine the class as a Psion, moving the more Wizardly features back to the Wizard (or send to the Warlock), to allow the design space to make a really good Psionisist in its place.

[MrCharlie]

I actually considered this a while back. I ended up coming up with a broad outline and a few examples, before losing track of it mentally.

First, my five classes were what I called Mage, Acolyte, Spellblade (I was never happy with that name), Expert, and Martial.

They were, in order, arcane casters (mostly), divine casters (as defined by "outsourcing" magic, so including warlocks), half-casters, "skilled" characters, and martial characters.

The core features of each were what I called Spells, Invocations, Infused Strikes, Precision Attack, and Martial Maneuvers.

Spells were traditional Vatican magic, although I do like the 5e version enough that I'd keep it. I notably included Druids here, to clearly differentiate them from clerics.

Invocations were closer to pact magic than traditional spell slots, and I never got fully into the mechanics-but the idea was that abilities like channel divinity and pact magic would both be encompassed here, and represent magic for all the classes here. Clerics and Warlocks both use invocations.

Infused Strikes was basically divine smite, but fueled by a sorcery point analog that also mimicked spells or spell like abilities in some ways. Monks and Paladins were here.

Precision attack was sneak attack, but with specific triggers for each archetype. Rogues were here, but I never got terribly far beyond them. I considered lumping this with Martial, but concluded both were too big then and too generic. Artificers might have fit here, but I was never happy with them.

Martial Maneuvers were basically battlemaster maneuvers, and defined the core feature that Barbarians and Fighters had in some capacity, and I toyed with including artificers (maneuvers becoming gadgets) and Cavaliers here to add variety.

From there, I determined I would need two levels of subclass to model the level of detail I wanted-an archetype, and then a specialization. Archetypes would define how this particular instance of the class uses the main feature, and would be more rarely expanded on in further content. Archetypes would be stuff like the old classes when needed-Fighter, Rogue, Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Warlock, Druid, Sorcere, and Wizard were all included.

For a couple of examples of this, Paladins received Divine Smite as their Infused Strike. It would channel through a weapon, and on a hit it would both deal extra damage and typically heal or buff an ally depending on the divine smite used. Monks, instead, received Ki Strikes as their Infused Strike. It would channel through unarmed strikes, and on a hit it would both deal extra damage and typically buff the monk or debuff the enemy. There were some overlaps, but what they did with infused strike would generally be archetype defining.

Then, they would have a specialization. The specialization would translate roughly to current archetypes, but included some classes that exist now that have limited direction compared to another class. Barbarian was likely going to end up as a fighter specialization, for instance, and Ranger was a Paladin specialization.

Barbarians would receive Rage powers that activated before combat, and improved certain maneuvers and buffed themselves in some ways at the cost of debuffing themselves in others. Ranger would be a Paladin specialization that had a nature theme and was better at ranged combat. Other archetypes I got part way into creating would include Spellthief for Rogue, which received bonuses to magic item use and anti-magic capabilities, and Rune Knight for Fighter which got to channel a rune through their maneuvers which created some mix-and-match effects.

Further, there was a sort of "hybridization" effect, where the lines got intentionally blurred a little. Bard and Swashbuckler were Rogue specializations that had features giving them limited Spellblade and Martial abilities, respectively. Some of the main classes could also be considered line blurring hybirds in what they did, but not the resource used to do it. Druids were Mages with lots of healing spells, Warlocks were Acolytes with lots of AOE debuffs and damage Invocations, etc.

For an example of how that would work in practice, Swashbucklers got Sneak Attack, but also received extra attack (or more extra attacks) like Fighters and Barbarians did. They also had "Elan", which allowed them to use skill checks in combat to influence enemies. Bards got Songs, which mimicked buffing spells like Paladins or Monks could, but didn't get infused strikes in any capacity.

Of course, few of these concrete examples have yet to be written, but the core class concepts are floating about there. I am also confident of the three tiers of specialization-Class, Archtype, Specialization-but not where I would put specific concepts (like Bard). I've already mentioned my lack of confidence on Expert versus Martial. I am more confident that Acolyte and Mage should be different, despite the level of change needed to re-write cleric and divine spellcasters in general to fit it, because I've never liked divine magic working the same as arcane magic and think the new system blends theme and lore better.

[Amnestic]

All spellcasters (including 1/3rd and 1/2) see their spell lists pared down drastically, especially wizard. 50-75% of a class' spells are now unique to them alone, with the remaining 25-50% being shared between their power source (arcane, divine, primal, music). Subclasses might give you access to off-class spells (eg. divine sorcerer getting some divine spells) but otherwise there'd be clear delineations between spell lists. An Eldritch Knight wouldn't take 'wizard spells', they'd take 'Eldritch Knight spells' and 'Arcane' spells.

While I'm at it, I'd add a bardic subclass to one of the martials. Barbarian (Skald) is an obvious choice but a bardic monk seems interesting. If they're going to be a 'fullcaster' class in 5e, then they deserve to have a 1/3rd caster subclass on a martial too.

[EggKookoo]

Regardless of the number of classes, I would give each class a generic resource die that can be used to add to any ability check. The size and number of dice would increase as the PC gained levels. Certain classes would also gain new uses for the die, such as a fighter maybe being able to add it to attack rolls and barbarians being able to add it to melee damage rolls (there would probably be a good amount of overlap there). Maybe instead of save proficiency, a class also allows use of these dice for specific saving throws. By default these dice would reset on a long rest.

Existing similar mechanics like Bardic Inspiration and Battlemaster Superiority Dice would get folded into this, providing extra dice, new ways to use them, and in some cases at least a partial reset on short rests. Even stuff like Ki and Sorcery Points, Barbarian Rage, and Sneak Attack would somehow leverage it. Maybe even Hit Dice would tie into it. This would become the core of each class, and many class features would use or depend on the dice.

The point of this is to create a resource that gets consumed for combat and non-combat encounters.

Anyway, I have a million ideas, and most of them are probably not great, but that's something I've been thinking about for a while.

[Gtdead]

I'm content with the class design within the current system. While the classes aren't equal in power, it has enough variety to keep it interesting. However I'd prefer a different system with more customization. For example:

Fighter's main ability would be Action Surge.
Paladin's main ability would be Smite.
Wizard's main ability would be Spellcasting

Every other feature could be purchased through points. So let's assume that we have some features like Extra Attack, Spell Resistance, Physical Saving Throws and Mental Saving Throws
Fighter being a martial class could buy extra attack with 1 point, Physical Saving Throws with 1 point, Spell Resistance with 3 points and Mental Saving Throws with 2 Points
Paladin being a divine martial class could buy extra attack with 2 points, Physical Saving Throws with 1 point, Spell Resistance with 2 points and Mental Saving Throws with 1 Point.
Wizard being an arcane caster class could buy extra attack with 3 points, Physical Saving Throws with 3 points, Spell Resistance with 1 point and Mental Saving Throws with 1 Point.

These are all conceptual of course and they would need heavy rebalancing because currently Spellcasting is waaaaaaaaay stronger than both Action Surge and Smite.

Additionally, I like the idea of changing multiclassing to a gestalt model.
If someone wants to multiclass a Fighter and a Wizard, every time they level up they gain something like of a 3/4th of a level. So a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard with enough XP that would allow him to be level 20 single class, would end up as a gestalt Fighter 15/Wizard 15. Essentially a multiclass would have more things to play with, but it would never reach the heights of a single classed character.

[clash]

The first thing I would do is axe the wizard and fighter. They are far too generic to make sense in a system with a dozen classes. Instead let's split it up a bit. Eliminate some of the redundancies and give some of the niches a better concept. Something like:

Artificer (intelligence)
- existing ones are probably fine

Beguiler (charisma)
- bard
- enchanter
- illusionist

Conduit (wisdom)
- cleric
- druid
- warlock
- totemist

Enhanced
- berserker
- swordmaster
- rune knight
- zealot
- shifter

Gladiator
- champion
- battle master
- master thrower

Knight
- cavelier
- noble
- eldritch knight
- death knight
- inquisitor

Mage (intelligence)
- evoker
- summoner
- transmuter

Monk
- existing ones are fine

Occultist (intelligence)
- necromancer
- demonologist
- abjurer

Rogue
- existing ones are fine

Sharpshooter (dexterity)
- ranger
- sniper
- arcane Archer

Spellblade
- paladin
- hexblade
- mageknight

Strategist
- banneret
- tactician
- beast master

[BoutsofInsanity]

I assume i'm designing for D&D and a generic heroic fantasy system.


Keep the classes and their names as it's iconic D&D. I would add however Warlord to it.

With sub-classes I think having a mix of generic good ones like Swashbuckler and Scout Rogue mixed in with campaign specific sub-classes like Assassin are a good design choice. Maybe 66% generic and 33% weird campaign specific styles.

Then focus on the identity of the classes and really hone in on what each class focuses on with it's key features. Further making sure each class gets some good stuff early, but rewards investment at later levels. So Multi-Classing is simultaneously rewarded and punished. Letting there be good trade-offs for the decision to build. I would design break points in each class, and I also like that their are currently power spikes at 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 11th level. I like that it subtle reinforces for the DM what kind of game to build their campaign for.

Classes

I won't go into huge detail here but I like where a lot of the class identities currently lie. But I'd double down on their identities and really have them be defined by them. Fighters would have more action surge style abilities, Barbarians would have more dynamic rage options, Sorcerers would explicitly have extra bloodline features, Rangers would be more adaptable and Monks would get Wis for strength checks so long as they have ki.

More tweaks then massive changes.

And of course, adding the Warlord.

[Dienekes]

Free reign to do whatever I want with the system? Oh I'd do a lot.

My primary design principle would be to provide dramatically different experiences, especially for classes that fulfill the same general role. Barbarians/Fighters, or Sorcerer/Wizard.

I'd pick one of the two and have them be the simple variant. For those who don't want to worry about complexity and the other would basically go all out on builds and picking out mechanics and whatnot.

For the Barbarian, I would rebalance so that they would be expected to be able to use Rage for every encounter for the most part. Making it Short Rest dependent, but nerfing its defensive qualities slightly at earlier levels. But in general keeping the feel of what a Barbarian currently is. They get angry. And then they hit things for massive damage. At later levels give some passive bonuses so they can jump further, scare people easier, that sort of thing. But get angry and hit things for massive damage is the core of them.

For Fighters, I'd go full Tome of Battle. Leveled maneuvers, stances, the whole nine yards. Probably wouldn't divide their leveled maneuvers by every odd level like magic. I think I'd go with the general tiers of play: 1-4, 5-10, 11-16, 17+. Hit for hit, the Barbarian should probably end up doing more damage and just passively surviving. That's their thing. But the Fighter should be all about figuring out combos, using the correct maneuver for the situation, balancing when to refresh your maneuvers in combat. And in general making them more versatile in play.For their subclasses I would focus far, far more on fitting the fantasy of various martial concepts, especially what they do out of combat. Subclasses would be things like Knight, Keshig, Veteran Soldier, Guard, and possibly Ranger but more on them later.

For Sorcerers and Wizards I'd again want to divide them up so those who want the simple playstyle can still pick a mage without having to go through dozens of lists of spells and abilities and invocations and managing spell slots just to play something simple.

I think the Sorcerer makes the most sense as the "simple" caster. So, what I would do is have them pick a subclass at level 1. These subclasses should start out as very visceral concepts. Stuff that needs very little explanation: Fire Sorcerer, Water Sorcerer, Mind Controlling Sorcerer. That sort of thing. Subclasses that even without reading what they do at a mechanical level a player should know if that sounds fun to them. After that, I'm not certain if I would even give them spells or just magical abilities that scale with their Sorcerer level. Then, like Barbarians have Recklass Assault, I'd probably add some sort of overdrive ability, make the next Sorcery you cast more powerful but at some cost. Maybe a roll on a Wild Magic Table. Maybe not. But something.

Wizards I would give metamagic to. They're the masters of spells after all. But I would also impose a little restriction on them: Spell Prerequisites. I'd try to make this simple though, being able to cast a higher level spell requires that the wizard know one fewer than their spell level. So if they want to cast a 1st level spell? Awesome they can do it. But if their entire Wizarding career they haven't learned a single conjuration spell they can't use Gate at level 17. They have to learn 8 other Conjuration spells before that.

Which gives a nice balance I think. A Wizard can do anything. With enough time and resources they may even be able to learn every single spell in the game. But in practice they'll be limited down 3 or so schools of magic with some low level utility magic in the other schools. This would probably need a rebalance of the schools though. Which is a lot of work, but hey, it's my fantasy restructure of the system.

So Rangers. I am still debating myself with this one. But, I'm kind of leaning toward removing them and just having the general aspects of a Ranger being split into things for Barbarian, Fighter, Druid, and Rogue subclasses. You can get a Survivalist Barbarian or a Ranger Fighter or a Trapper Rogue. Or whatever. And replacing the Ranger with a Beastmaster class. Frankly, even after Tasha's I don't think 5e has ever done a good job of trying to make a pet that actually feels like a real pet. And it's hard. You have to balance around one player in the game getting twice the bodies to work with. And as long as it's only a subclass it has to contend with the fact that roughly 3/4 of the class and its abilities can't really be used to fine tune that experience. So I would just say a pet class is it's own class. Spend the full 20 levels to make that feel right and balanced with everyone else.

Bards I would make into 1/2 casters with way way more of their base class features being around performances of various kinds. I see them as a center point of either oration or songs that give a nice bunch of bonuses to those around them while they play. And after a few levels, can weave spells into their songs as well.

There's more, but they tend to get into fiddly things that I'm more tentative about. For example, I don't like the Rogue class. I've never seen one played that I think fits what I think a Rogue should be doing in combat (though out of combat they're fine). But the Rogue is often regarded as one of the most satisfying classes in the game. So I probably shouldn't touch it.

[Psyren]

Barbarian unarmored AC would be 10 + ST or DX modifier + CO modifier.

I'd do 13+{Dex or Con, whichever is higher}


Spellcasters may concentrate on more than one spell as the levels progress - half proficiency bonus rounded down in number is fine. Concentration checks are made for each spell separately.

I'd probably just allow concentration on one other spell at very high levels (15+).


All Sorcerers get bonus spells based on bloodline. They can be swapped for specific appropriate school spells. Draconic would be wizard evocation or transmutation spells for example. Sorcery points may be recovered on a short rest.

Definitely this.



Keep the classes and their names as it's iconic D&D. I would add however Warlord to it.


What kind of abilities would it get? I'm guessing some form of HP recovery or temp HP?

[Dienekes]

What kind of abilities would it get? I'm guessing some form of HP recovery or temp HP?

Personally, I'd want to see all of this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jg2uh0wSw8At4Q8mqQESQQiqzsb8UOHG/view

But official.

[Abracadangit]

This question is kryptonite for people on this board, ha ha. We're all like "Wait, let me gather my notes!! FIRST OF ALL..."

Anyway, after gathering my notes, first of all...

--I'd split Rogue into a Thief class and an Assassin class. Apparently once upon a time this was a thing, except Gygax nixed it because something something it encouraged players to be antagonistic? To me, Thief and Assassin are such iconic character tropes in fantasy literature, smooshing them into one class doesn't do them justice. And it's so easy to come up with subs for each!!

--Add a Shaman. I know, I know -- why can't I just refluff a Druid. Partly true, but there's so much real estate Shamans cover that Druids don't really touch. Communicating with the dead, blipping in and out of the spirit world (maybe an offshoot of the Ethereal Plane), sealing powerful trickster spirits in items or masks, etc, etc.

--Spin Hexblade off into its own thing. It sits weirdly in the Warlock chassis, and we've already got Paladins and Rangers, why not have an arcane version that could have its own subs and spread its wings.


All Sorcerers get bonus spells based on bloodline. They can be swapped for specific appropriate school spells. Draconic would be wizard evocation or transmutation spells for example. Sorcery points may be recovered on a short rest.

--Agree with all of this. I'd also give Sorcerers something akin to Invocations, so they can be the specialist mages that I think they were supposed to be, but never quite accomplished.


Wizards I would give metamagic to. They're the masters of spells after all.

--Agree. They're the ones classically trained in magic and spellcraft, so I've always felt like them owning metamagic made more sense. Also I'd attack one of the D&D sacred cows and not tie subclasses to schools of magic, so we could spin off Necromancer and put it under Warlock, and then change Warlock from dealing with patrons to different occult scholar subtropes (Necromancer, Demonologist, Alienist, Shadowmancer, etc). You can fluff your powers as having a patron if you want, but part of the reason Warlocks have always felt wonky is because the class hangs on a narrative trope, NOT an ability trope, which puts it at odds with almost every other class in the game.

--Sprinkle around a bunch of ribbon abilities so every class feels like they can do something fun and/or flavorful in exploration/social pillars. There's so little of that right now, and for no real good reason.

--Provide an overarching maneuver system that applies to all martials, with class-specific ones for Barbarians, Monks, Thieves, Assassins (see what I did there) and then Fighters can take from almost anywhere. Instead of tying them to a short-rest resource, let them work as they initially intended in the 5e playtests, where you got one maneuver per turn, with maybe some kind of cooldown mechanic for the really strong ones. Martials (aside from the half-casters) shouldn't have to bookkeep slots and points over a day, that's the burden you shoulder for playing a caster.

I'd make other changes that aren't as major, but those are the broad strokes, if I ran the zoo.

Edit: Oh, and rework the tool system to work in tandem with a new crafting system, so it's not like three or four of the tools actually do something meaningful and the rest of them are effectively flavor. Heck, it even FEELS like there was supposed to be a crafting system (herbalism kit makes potions of healing, alchemist's supplies make alchemist's fire), but they couldn't get it shined up in time for release, so they dashed it while leaving a couple pieces floating around in there.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I'd do 13+{Dex or Con, whichever is higher}

What kind of abilities would it get? I'm guessing some form of HP recovery or temp HP?

I've gotten it about half-way there in my homebrew. No, not a lot of HP recovery.

The Warlord has a few key features.

1. They can use the help action as a bonus action and at range. As they level it gets more powerful, allowing it to apply to multiple attacks, increased range, and dealing extra damage. The subclasses would modify it further. Such as, "If the recipient of your Warlord's help hits their target, the target's movement speed is halved."

2. They have a few ribbon features, such as increased group travel pace and advantage on constitution saves when "Forced March"

3. Extra Attack, Heavy Armor and Shield Proficiency

4. Their main draw would be their "Warlord's Tactics". These are Actions that can be taken that are dynamic and provide team wide buffs. Examples include

Retreat!: "As part of this action make a single weapon attack (Unarmed counts), you and your allies may take the disengage action as a bonus action till the start of your next turn."

Eyes Up: "As part of this action make a single weapon attack (Unarmed Counts), you and your allies may make perception checks as a bonus action till the start of your next turn."

Knock them down: "As part of this action make a single weapon attack (Unarmed Counts), you and your allies may take the shove action as a bonus action till the start of their next turn, they add your proficiency bonus to all shove attacks they attempt till the start of your next turn."

Further there are more roleplay tactics that can be taken. For example...

Prepared talking points: "This takes five minutes, all allies who participate gain the ability to reroll one charisma ability check. This lasts until you take a long or short rest." The idea being that before the party attends a ball, the Warlord goes over everything and prepares the party. Much like this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M0Ox2zdbMw&ab_channel=BrooklynNine-Nine).

The Warlord also has party role specific buffs that apply to specific actions. For example.

Lead the way huntmaster: "You or an ally you choose gain the ability to reroll one ability check to track a creature. They remain alert to danger while tracking a creature. Only one creature may benefit from this ability at a time. "

These all fall under tactics, the Warlord gains a number of them that they can memorize and know, and can during a short or long rest exchange them out for others. Party members who rest with the Warlord are the only ones able to benefit from these tactics. Implying that they were able to drill them or go over the tactics during the rest. This allows the Warlord tactical flexibility and different abilities are obviously campaign dependent. The intent is to make sure that the Warlord wants to take a variety of Tactics that apply over different conditions. Maybe 1 or 2 combat focused ones, one or two roleplay ones, and a one utility one.

The subclasses would give one base tactic that is always known and prepared, and give some modifications on the "Warlord's Help" feature, a few extra ribbons, and access to special "Tactics" that the subclass knows.

[BoutsofInsanity]

--Provide an overarching maneuver system that applies to all martials, with class-specific ones for Barbarians, Monks, Thieves, Assassins (see what I did there) and then Fighters can take from almost anywhere. Instead of tying them to a short-rest resource, let them work as they initially intended in the 5e playtests, where you got one maneuver per turn, with maybe some kind of cooldown mechanic for the really strong ones. Martials (aside from the half-casters) shouldn't have to bookkeep slots and points over a day, that's the burden you shoulder for playing a caster.

I'd make other changes that aren't as major, but those are the broad strokes, if I ran the zoo.
.

Just a heads up. Page 195 of the PHB top right corner "Contests in Combat" basically, by RAW gives you your maneuver system. Use the Grapple and Shove rules as models for adjudicating actions not explicitly listed in the book.

I can think off the top of my head...

Leg kicks for dulling movement
Eye Gouges or face cuts for blindness
Choking for well choking
Throat slams for silence
Disarming
Disrupting Somatic components


This is balanced by the following

Most everything requires melee
Lots of things are broken by walking out of reach, like choking and somatic component disruption. So for those to be effective you need to grapple or have sentinel
They sacrifice damage and attacks for condition infliction
Its balanced around the martial classes as each one, ignoring feats is uniquely good at these maneuvers, like shove and grapple.



Barbarian - Has advantage with Rage

Fighter - Has multiple attacks

Rogue - Get's expertise



These do no damage, like shove and grapple they eat attacks, they dont' do damage to inflict conditions
Many of them are going to require melee range
Choking is worthless without Sentinel or grappling the target. They can just walk out of the choke if they aren't grappled ending the conditio
[/LIST]

[Wildstag]

Ranger remains the same save for favored enemy. FE would get an additional option at the same levels, but you also have the option of replacing a prior FE for a new one at those levels too. Additionally, it would give a static bonus to damage against favored enemies equal to 1d6 (maybe even 1d8), and increasing by damage die each time you gain a new favored enemy. This additional damage would be usable only once per turn. Subclasses that give bonus damage once per turn would remain unchanged.

Really, Favored Enemy just needed to provide a combat benefit the same way all the other martials do. Barbarian gets rage damage, Fighter gets more additional attacks, Monk gets Martial Arts, Paladins get smites, and rogues get sneak attack. Rangers get no combat benefit per the PHB, and when they did, it replaced all out-of-combat benefits they got. A common thread in DnDNext was that each martial would have a way to use a d6 for additional options in combat, which at the earliest stages were superiority dice. The name was given specifically to Battlemasters, but of all the martials, Ranger lost their bonus damage and ONLY the rangers.

Rangers should remain trackers and hunters, and knowledge-sources about their foes. With current 5e, they're EITHER tracker/sources of knowledge OR they're hunters. They're neither at the same time though.

Otherwise, Rangers are fine; they do what they need to and do it well enough. And they're still appealing, even to diehard Ranger fans (like myself). I'll still play one in 5e, I just need to work with the GM to get Favored Foe and Favored Enemy to work in concert rather than have one replace the other. More than any other class, Rangers really suffer from the power creep inherent to the edition. Their subclasses close the gap slightly but still lag behind the potential of other classes.

P.S. Actually, Primeval Awareness should change to actually be useful as a tracking tool. Direction and distance should be given by the ability.

P.P.S. Rearranged the formatting to make it less redundant. Nothing was deleted though...

[arnin77]

No more exhaustion on the Berserker’s Frenzy.

Edit. Actually I’d also change intimidating presence to wisdom saving throw DC equal to 8+prof bonus + strength mod and subsequent turns usable as a bonus action.

[Sorinth]

Honestly I'm not sure I would cut any classes. I get the argument for merging some of the classes together like say Barbarian and Fighter, I'm not sure it's a wise idea. Yes you can easily make Barbarian a subclass of Fighter but then you lose out of the Barbarian subclass variations or you end up with a very large number of subclasses and the subclass has to pull in both the class and subclass abilities making each subclass have a large number of abilities. I think I prefer having the approach where the subclasses are smaller variations of the class rather then big changes to the class.

In terms of differentiating the classes.
For martials they should all similar DPR values the difference should come more from how that damage is dealt and the types of riders they could impose (Though there would be some overlap). So for example
Barbarians should have a low number of powerful attacks and riders such as knocking prone, grappling, fear.
Monks should have a high number of weak attacks with riders similar to Stun (I'd like something less powerful but activates more often).
Fighters would have a medium number of attacks doing medium damage and have the largest variety of riders
Rangers would be focused on AoE damage attacks and spells riders
Paladins would be the nova class via smites and spell riders
Rogues should be debuffers (Think throwing sand in opponents eyes to blind for 1 round, or maybe sacrifice some SA damage from the attack to throat punch and silence the target for a round, etc...

[Abracadangit]

Just a heads up. -SNIP-

You're not wrong, I could wing a bunch of maneuvers based on that logic, and they would be consistent and work.

But like -- there are some things that should exist by now within certain classes that still don't. Like a Barb should be able to pick someone up and toss them further than 5 feet away. Bonus damage if you throw them into somebody else. You COULD wing it, but why isn't it a standardized thing, right.

Monks should have a bunch of techniques with flowery names, like "Plum Blossom Strike" or "Dragon Fangs" or whatever that do different cool things, and you can cobble them together to make your OWN fighting style that expresses your character concept to the utmost.

Rogues should be able to do dirty-fighting-type tricks as part of their combat, like what Sorinth is talking about in their post.

That's what I mean about needing maneuvers. I want martials to be able to do Cool Things With Names On Them, but maybe once a turn or round or whatever so the game doesn't slide back to 4e in that regard. Basic weapon attacks are good, but let's get them a side of something else to go with it.


Ranger remains the same... -SNIP-

Agree all over the place, with everything you said. And like -- none of your suggested fixes are even terribly hard to implement, right. I don't know why WotC refuses to give Rangers their static damage bump or whatever. Maybe because they're typically ranged, and they feel like that's unfair? Not totally sure, but I would adopt all of your suggested Ranger fixes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to take a radically different position to most everyone here.

Core Principle: A class-level game should not try to re-implement point-buy--that inevitably goes badly. Instead, class/level games thrive when the classes have very clear thematic and archetypal resonance and when the classes clearly set out the supported archetypes/concepts and no consideration is given to concepts outside that set. No, D&D is not a generic fantasy game. Nor should it attempt to be (IMO). Class features are better than free-form "pick some of these" lists (ie better than bonus feats or large spell lists).

As a result, each combination of class/subclass should have a unique thematic nature and class fiction that should be clearly stated in the description. It's totally fine to re-use mechanical elements, but anyone picking up the game or looking at a character sheet should immediately know the archetypal role of the character.

As a further result, multiclassing level-by-level should go away entirely. At most, replace it with feat-based multi-classing (a la 4e or PF2e). Better to create sub-classes that reflect the combinations that fit into the supported design space.

Prime offender: wizards. Wizards have no class fiction other than "I'm better because I'm smart." Which sucks. At least fighters have meaning once you include the subclasses. Wizards only do in a couple cases. Sort of. And even then, outside of narrowly-specialized multiclass builds, just about every wizard looks the same.

Proposal: rebuild the wizard class from the ground up, starting with the spell list. They should have the inverse of the cleric domain spells--their core list should be narrow and they should get a lot of expanded choices from their subclass. Not based on schools, because the schools don't make any sense. No generalist wizards. Period. In exchange, give them actual class features beyond "I cast more spells".

Second principle: Any numbers the system expects shouldn't be able to be missed or traded out for other things and should be baked into the class via features (even if the features give choices as to which of the numbers to boost). This includes anything that gives extra attacks or the power-attack features or improvements to dual-wielding.

Third principle: Ability scores aren't simulations, they're archetype-compliance dials. State this up front and lean into it. Instead of creating a profusion of named abilities per class (maneuver style), give general guidance on things that people who specialize in X should be able to do. Named abilities cause air-breathing mermaid issues. Instead, make it clear that if you're 20 (or possibly lower) STR, you can throw people into each other with an ability check. Barbarians and others whose class fiction leans into the "Big Strong Guy" archetype and key off of STR should get enhancements to these things (ie "when you throw someone, you also ...").

Miscellaneous:
* Give sorcerers more spells known based on subclass.
* Restrict bards' access via Magical Secrets--no more cherry picking spells off of the half-caster lists before the half-casters can cast them.
* Revamp how "utility" spells work, turning at least a good number of them into 4e-style "incantations" (ie rituals that anyone can learn and perform, with restrictions based on cost or other factors to prevent spamming).

[Psyren]

Honestly I like the idea that Cool Things are kind of generalized in the system to a degree. Your GM should absolutely let you swing from a chandelier to kick a bad guy in the face, or rage and throw a bugbear into another bugbear etc. And the more of that stuff you explicitly codify the more likely you run into the 3.5 problem where the GM is likely to say "there isn't a rule for that" and suddenly the devs are making a bad PrC or feat designed around doing that specific thing.

[Abracadangit]

Honestly I like the idea that Cool Things are kind of generalized in the system to a degree. Your GM should absolutely let you swing from a chandelier to kick a bad guy in the face, or rage and throw a bugbear into another bugbear etc. And the more of that stuff you explicitly codify the more likely you run into the 3.5 problem where the GM is likely to say "there isn't a rule for that" and suddenly the devs are making a bad PrC or feat designed around doing that specific thing.

I'm with you halfway, but in my experience, DMs are already doing that now.

"I wanna throw Bugbear A into Bugbear B," right. DM says "Ehhhh ok, only Bugbear A will take damage, and it's only your Str modifier. And they're not knocked prone at all."

I know what you're gonna say -- "But Abra, that's a sucky example and you know it. DMs are supposed to encourage fun and flavorful combat actions based on circumstances." And you're right! Heck, I'm right there with you. But they don't, in my experience. If the rules aren't there, DMs default to "I don't want this to become a thing," and nerf the heck out of it, subsequently making it less attractive than just attacking normally.

There's a very good chance you play with DMs that don't do this -- in which case, I concede that. But when I've played in games with other DMs, it's rarely the norm. And I don't mean to sound like I fault them for it -- I get where they're coming from.

[Sorinth]

I'm with you halfway, but in my experience, DMs are already doing that now.

"I wanna throw Bugbear A into Bugbear B," right. DM says "Ehhhh ok, only Bugbear A will take damage, and it's only your Str modifier. And they're not knocked prone at all."

I know what you're gonna say -- "But Abra, that's a sucky example and you know it. DMs are supposed to encourage fun and flavorful combat actions based on circumstances." And you're right! Heck, I'm right there with you. But they don't, in my experience. If the rules aren't there, DMs default to "I don't want this to become a thing," and nerf the heck out of it, subsequently making it less attractive than just attacking normally.

There's a very good chance you play with DMs that don't do this -- in which case, I concede that. But when I've played in games with other DMs, it's rarely the norm. And I don't mean to sound like I fault them for it -- I get where they're coming from.

Of the two approaches I prefer 5e's having these things not be codified approach. Yes there will be DMs that say no, but if they go with the other approach and have a Bugbear Tossing feat some of the DMs that would've said yes when there was nothing codified will now say no unless you have the feat, and the feat is likely not going to be worth it except in very niche builds so we've overall probably lost more then we've gained.

I do think the DMG should sort of back the notion that you should not only encourage creativity but also some guidelines for how to keep in releveant. Even just mentioning that the DM should factor the opportunitiy cost of just attacking and knowing the PCs DPR to ball park what might be reasonable.

[dafrca]

This is a dangerous subject. If I change too much then I begin to ask if I am still playing D&D or have a begun to create my own game (ala the clones and pathfinders).

I will confess though, I am really looking forward to seeing where this thread goes because I am sure there are strong feelings on many different levels and across many different classes. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Of the two approaches I prefer 5e's having these things not be codified approach. Yes there will be DMs that say no, but if they go with the other approach and have a Bugbear Tossing feat some of the DMs that would've said yes when there was nothing codified will now say no unless you have the feat, and the feat is likely not going to be worth it except in very niche builds so we've overall probably lost more then we've gained.

I do think the DMG should sort of back the notion that you should not only encourage creativity but also some guidelines for how to keep in releveant. Even just mentioning that the DM should factor the opportunitiy cost of just attacking and knowing the PCs DPR to ball park what might be reasonable.

I agree with this. That's why I want guidelines (not rules, but guidelines) for adjudicating "thematic actions" (or more specifically the consequences for success and possibly rough guidance on DCs if they're done via Ability Checks). I really don't like air-breathing mermaid problems, where everyone assumed you could do X until they published a spell/feat/feature that gave explicit permission, which then implies that the default was you couldn't do X without the permission slip.

[Amechra]

Proposal: rebuild the wizard class from the ground up, starting with the spell list. They should have the inverse of the cleric domain spells--their core list should be narrow and they should get a lot of expanded choices from their subclass. Not based on schools, because the schools don't make any sense. No generalist wizards. Period. In exchange, give them actual class features beyond "I cast more spells".

Alternatively, make the schools actual in-world schools.

...

Personally, I'd do the radical thing and remove spellcasting as a class feature. Spells are treated like magic items, and everyone can access/use them.

If you made me stick more closely to the original design document... I'd merge a few classes (Fighter/Monk, Barbarian/Ranger, and Sorcerer/Warlock come to mind), cut a class or two (looking at you, Wizard), and then restock the class list accordingly. I'd also definitely dump the whole "spellcasting is the only subsystem that really allows for expressive character building" thing.

[Abracadangit]

Of the two approaches I prefer 5e's having these things not be codified approach. Yes there will be DMs that say no, but if they go with the other approach and have a Bugbear Tossing feat some of the DMs that would've said yes when there was nothing codified will now say no unless you have the feat, and the feat is likely not going to be worth it except in very niche builds so we've overall probably lost more then we've gained.

I do think the DMG should sort of back the notion that you should not only encourage creativity but also some guidelines for how to keep in releveant. Even just mentioning that the DM should factor the opportunitiy cost of just attacking and knowing the PCs DPR to ball park what might be reasonable.

This is fair. I see your point about "Well once we codify X, then you've got to have Feat Y or else you can't do X." Some additional guidance in the DMG could definitely be useful.

But to cite the "How Should D&D Handle Maneuvers" thread from some time ago, I do also think that there's a lot of debates about how to make martials feel punchier and more interesting, and without maneuvers, we're leaving a lot of thematic martial real estate on the table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Alternatively, make the schools actual in-world schools.


I'd rather they didn't, because that has heavy world-building complications. My world's schools of magical thought and your world's schools of magical thought are going to be quite different, because schools of magical thought depend heavily on history and culture. Having abstract "here are ways wizards tend to categorize spells based on what they do" is moderately disconnected from setting, enough to pass. But the current ones and current spell <=> school assignments are not suited for balance at all.



...

Personally, I'd do the radical thing and remove spellcasting as a class feature. Spells are treated like magic items, and everyone can access/use them.

If you made me stick more closely to the original design document... I'd merge a few classes (Fighter/Monk, Barbarian/Ranger, and Sorcerer/Warlock come to mind), cut a class or two (looking at you, Wizard), and then restock the class list accordingly. I'd also definitely dump the whole "spellcasting is the only subsystem that really allows for expressive character building" thing.

I don't want to go this far. And I'm fine with "spellcasting" being the primary "subsystem" (for simplicity if nothing else), although I'd like to move it away from explicitly spells and more "supernatural effects." So that your barbarian can interact with this subsystem without having the thematics of casting spells from spell slots. Basically "spells" would become "supernatural effects" that may be produced via spells or may be produced via class or race features or feats or whatever. Without the tie to slots, components, etc.

[Psyren]

I'm with you halfway, but in my experience, DMs are already doing that now.

"I wanna throw Bugbear A into Bugbear B," right. DM says "Ehhhh ok, only Bugbear A will take damage, and it's only your Str modifier. And they're not knocked prone at all."

I know what you're gonna say -- "But Abra, that's a sucky example and you know it. DMs are supposed to encourage fun and flavorful combat actions based on circumstances." And you're right! Heck, I'm right there with you. But they don't, in my experience. If the rules aren't there, DMs default to "I don't want this to become a thing," and nerf the heck out of it, subsequently making it less attractive than just attacking normally.

There's a very good chance you play with DMs that don't do this -- in which case, I concede that. But when I've played in games with other DMs, it's rarely the norm. And I don't mean to sound like I fault them for it -- I get where they're coming from.

I agree there's a risk that allowing something cool can make it a go-to tactic for the player. "You let me throw the bugbear last time, why can't I throw this mummy?!" And if it's too effective, suddenly they're running around tossing every enemy they can grab instead of attacking normally, while if it's too ineffective the player gets disappointed for having "wasted" their turn, and eventually they might start to feel like their martial character is boring.

Personally though I think 5e gives the tools to allow these sorts of things while keeping them reasonably under control. You might for instance reward unorthodox tactics heavily in one combat while making them impractical in others. Grabbing someone and tossing them for example is a lot easier on solid ground than on a swaying ship or a peat bog. And maybe you only allow it while the character is raging, or X/short rest. Or maybe the first time they do it they get Inspiration even if it turns out to be weak damage-wise, but it becomes old hat after that so it truly was a one-time reward - rewarding them more for being innovative than for specifically making a wrestler. And in all cases, start from whether its even possible - even a raging barbarian can't throw a dragon.

Granted, you're getting kind of close to just designing a maneuver system at that point, but I think the ability check mechanic is broad enough that you can get away without needing one.


Of the two approaches I prefer 5e's having these things not be codified approach. Yes there will be DMs that say no, but if they go with the other approach and have a Bugbear Tossing feat some of the DMs that would've said yes when there was nothing codified will now say no unless you have the feat, and the feat is likely not going to be worth it except in very niche builds so we've overall probably lost more then we've gained.

I do think the DMG should sort of back the notion that you should not only encourage creativity but also some guidelines for how to keep in releveant. Even just mentioning that the DM should factor the opportunitiy cost of just attacking and knowing the PCs DPR to ball park what might be reasonable.

This, and you don't even need a DPR ballpark. The DMG already has guidelines for what constitutes "good damage" from a single effect at various level thresholds and tiers of play - see Improvising Damage, DMG 249.

[Greywander]

This question is kryptonite for people on this board, ha ha. We're all like "Wait, let me gather my notes!! FIRST OF ALL..."
True dat. I didn't expect this thread to move as fast as it did.


I actually considered this a while back. I ended up coming up with a broad outline and a few examples, before losing track of it mentally.

First, my five classes were what I called Mage, Acolyte, Spellblade (I was never happy with that name), Expert, and Martial.
I actually really like this, I think you've got a solid foundation here. I might change Acolyte to Theurge, and I wouldn't have it be a different class from the Mage unless it had a significant mechanical difference in how it handles spellcasting, which it sounds like you were planning to do.

I really like the idea of a Spellblade as a gish whose main gimmick is casting spells when they hit with a weapon attack. It's kind of surprising 5e doesn't already have something like that, Divine Smite or Stunning Strike are the closest things, and even the smite spells don't work that way. I think it makes a lot of sense to use a Spellblade as a base for the monk and paladin. My main concern would be differentiating it from a Mage or Theurge, as you could just as easily make the Spellblade a subclass for those.

For martial types, I can see two types of martials based on how they attack: is it one big attack, or many weak attacks? You sort of get this with the difference between fighter and rogue, but it's backwards from how I would have expected it. I'd think that the fast character would be the one making many weak attacks, and the strong character would be the one making a single powerful attack. These would't necessarily need to be different classes, though. I could see making the Martial default to two attacks, and then giving them the option for a Power Attack, which replaces two of their attacks with one powerful attack, or a Flurry, which replaces one attack with two weaker attacks. You can then give them options for bonuses that are per attack and bonuses that are per turn, allowing them to specialize into either Flurry or Power Attack.

Part of the problem with the Expert is that D&D puts a heavy emphasis on combat, and the Expert is focused entirely on out-of-combat stuff. Given that a lot of casters have spells for both combat and utility, and can see an argument for merging Expert and Martial together. However, I think it might be more interesting to find a specific niche in combat for the Expert, and cool utility things for the Martial. For example, I previously mentioned potentially building an entire class around some form of Bardic Inspiration/Superiority Dice. Maybe this could be what the Expert does in combat, giving them the ability to manipulate dice rolls to help their allies and hinder their enemies.


Honestly I'm not sure I would cut any classes. I get the argument for merging some of the classes together like say Barbarian and Fighter, I'm not sure it's a wise idea.
I think it's a bit easier to see with caster classes than with martials, but a lot of the existing caster classes look like minor variations on each other. For the most part, they use almost the exact same spellcasting mechanics, for example. I could easily see having one unified Mage class, where wizard, sorcerer, bard, cleric, and druid are all subclasses of Mage. A lot of the uniqueness in caster classes comes from their spell list, not the class itself, and you could easily handle this as expanded subclass spell lists instead.

Martials do tend to be a bit more unique than casters, the issue is that their unique feature doesn't cover the same design space as spellcasting does. You could pretty easily turn, say, Rage into a single feat, allowing any martial to gain access to Rage. Feats do exist for spellcasting, but they are far scaled back compared to what a full caster gets, it's not even close.

Basically, the problem is that casters have a strong mechanical identity, but they all have the same identity, while martials all have unique but weak mechanical identities. As such, it makes sense to merge casters together and to rebuild martials with stronger core mechanics.


I'm going to take a radically different position to most everyone here.

Core Principle: A class-level game should not try to re-implement point-buy--that inevitably goes badly. Instead, class/level games thrive when the classes have very clear thematic and archetypal resonance and when the classes clearly set out the supported archetypes/concepts and no consideration is given to concepts outside that set. No, D&D is not a generic fantasy game. Nor should it attempt to be (IMO). Class features are better than free-form "pick some of these" lists (ie better than bonus feats or large spell lists).

As a result, each combination of class/subclass should have a unique thematic nature and class fiction that should be clearly stated in the description. It's totally fine to re-use mechanical elements, but anyone picking up the game or looking at a character sheet should immediately know the archetypal role of the character.

As a further result, multiclassing level-by-level should go away entirely. At most, replace it with feat-based multi-classing (a la 4e or PF2e). Better to create sub-classes that reflect the combinations that fit into the supported design space.

Prime offender: wizards. Wizards have no class fiction other than "I'm better because I'm smart." Which sucks. At least fighters have meaning once you include the subclasses. Wizards only do in a couple cases. Sort of. And even then, outside of narrowly-specialized multiclass builds, just about every wizard looks the same.

Proposal: rebuild the wizard class from the ground up, starting with the spell list. They should have the inverse of the cleric domain spells--their core list should be narrow and they should get a lot of expanded choices from their subclass. Not based on schools, because the schools don't make any sense. No generalist wizards. Period. In exchange, give them actual class features beyond "I cast more spells".

Second principle: Any numbers the system expects shouldn't be able to be missed or traded out for other things and should be baked into the class via features (even if the features give choices as to which of the numbers to boost). This includes anything that gives extra attacks or the power-attack features or improvements to dual-wielding.

Third principle: Ability scores aren't simulations, they're archetype-compliance dials. State this up front and lean into it. Instead of creating a profusion of named abilities per class (maneuver style), give general guidance on things that people who specialize in X should be able to do. Named abilities cause air-breathing mermaid issues. Instead, make it clear that if you're 20 (or possibly lower) STR, you can throw people into each other with an ability check. Barbarians and others whose class fiction leans into the "Big Strong Guy" archetype and key off of STR should get enhancements to these things (ie "when you throw someone, you also ...").

Miscellaneous:
* Give sorcerers more spells known based on subclass.
* Restrict bards' access via Magical Secrets--no more cherry picking spells off of the half-caster lists before the half-casters can cast them.
* Revamp how "utility" spells work, turning at least a good number of them into 4e-style "incantations" (ie rituals that anyone can learn and perform, with restrictions based on cost or other factors to prevent spamming).
I'm trying not to quote full posts, so my own post doesn't get too long, but this is all pretty good. Not sure I'd want to do everything you describe (I like me some multiclassing), but I think you've got a lot of good stuff here. I think this is the kind of thing I was looking for. Part of the problem with a lot of homebrew is the lack of guiding principles (and this applies to my own homebrew as well). It leads to haphazard, non-cohesive design where nothing seems to work together and there doesn't seem to be an underlying identity.


This is a dangerous subject. If I change too much then I begin to ask if I am still playing D&D or have a begun to create my own game (ala the clones and pathfinders).

I will confess though, I am really looking forward to seeing where this thread goes because I am sure there are strong feelings on many different levels and across many different classes. :smallbiggrin:
Is that really a bad thing, though? :smallwink:


Personally, I'd do the radical thing and remove spellcasting as a class feature. Spells are treated like magic items, and everyone can access/use them.
This is an interesting idea. A caster designed like a martial might get spells as class features instead, e.g. "When you reach 5th level, you learn how to decimate your enemies with powerful Fireballs. As an action, you can..." For a class designed this way, I'd kind of expect them to learn only a very small number of spells (e.g. 5 spells total), but for those spells to scale up as they leveled, making them always useful to cast.

I think this could work great as a design for a specific archetype of magic user. However, it's also antithetical to the wizard archetype, which is specifically supposed to be able to learn almost any spell. What I might do for a wizard then is focus on ritual casting, so they can learn and cast any spell, but only as rituals, giving a lot more value to the classes who can just cast the spell as an action or whatever. I'd probably also give the wizard a limited degree of non-ritual casting, just so they're not useless in combat, but maybe make it more like true Vancian casting (e.g. they have to scribe some spell scrolls with specific spells ahead of time).

I'm curious what you mean about spells being treated like magic items. How would that work? Is the spell inside a magic item (e.g. a wand), and anyone can cast the spell by using the item? Can anyone just cast the spell at any time, as long as one person in the party knows the spell? What if you split the party? And how would caster classes work under this paradigm? I think there's a lot of interesting potential here.

It kind of reminds me of a homebrew version of the artificer I wrote up. I removed spellcasting and replaced it with an expanded spell-storing item feature. So to cast your spells, you have to put them in an item first, and then the item has a limited amount of charge, but you can also share those items with your party.

[Sorinth]

I think it's a bit easier to see with caster classes than with martials, but a lot of the existing caster classes look like minor variations on each other. For the most part, they use almost the exact same spellcasting mechanics, for example. I could easily see having one unified Mage class, where wizard, sorcerer, bard, cleric, and druid are all subclasses of Mage. A lot of the uniqueness in caster classes comes from their spell list, not the class itself, and you could easily handle this as expanded subclass spell lists instead.

Martials do tend to be a bit more unique than casters, the issue is that their unique feature doesn't cover the same design space as spellcasting does. You could pretty easily turn, say, Rage into a single feat, allowing any martial to gain access to Rage. Feats do exist for spellcasting, but they are far scaled back compared to what a full caster gets, it's not even close.

If you turn Rage into a feat then you lose out on how each barbarian subclass customizes that rage. Some of those subclasses abilities don't really need to be linked with rage, but there are others like Wild Magic Barbarian where the tie to rage is and should be quite strong.

Even in terms of casters I think you'd get similar problems. I do agree with you that too much of the class difference is in the spell list but rather then merge them into 1 class why not actually make the difference in how they use magic have a bigger impact.

In terms of overall theme I would probably go with
Wizard: Low number of slots and low number of prepared spells that can be changed on SR but an expanded ritual magic. They can ritually cast any spell but the ritual time increases significantly with spell level, and higher tier spells (5th or maybe 6th +) also require expensive components to ritually cast.
Sorcerer: Uses a fixed up spell point system that's blended with sorcery points and has a way to sacrifice health to regain points
Bard: Spells are cast through a performance and it's difficult to tell the difference between a regular performance and one that is magically infused. Basically ending up a sort of modified Subtle spell effect for all their spellcasting.
Druid: Follows the Warlock template of Pact Magic slots + Druid themed Invocations.
Cleric: I would probably just leave this one as is

[Leon]

A lot of Reworking to make more use of "Hit Dice" to fuel class abilities, rename them for a start to something like Reserve dice. Still have them as a Healing option but let classes Such as Berserker Barbarians pay a Reserve dice to activate the extra attack, Battlemasters can pay one to get more superiority dice (equal to Prof bonus) if they have used all of the starting allotment up. Bards and Inspiration Dice similarly.

Druids wouldn't have Wildshape (Moon druids aside), they would have a starting allotment of Natural Power (Scaling to Prof Bonus) that they could use to power a number of different abilities in nature themed ways which may include minor animal forms but not limited to it, Free Summon Beasts spells or the like more. Different Circles would get more options that fit based on what they do as a theme. Ranger's would Share Beast Master (modified slightly for Druids getting it as a Circle at lvl 2) with Druids and the subclass would be as is except Animal gets to Attack (as well as the other functions of that command) as a Bonus action. Natural Power could be refreshed on a 1 to 1 basis by Reserve Dice aswell.

Many things would scale off your Proficiency bonus for usage.

Rogues can Sneak Attack with any Light weapon they are proficient in.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you were to throw out all existing classes and subclasses and build new ones from scratch, which classes would you make, and what would your design principles be?
Arcane Archer: burninate, it's a stupid sub class, play a ranger.
That stupid dwarf only SCAG barbarian, battlerager: burninate, stupid.
Hexblade: burninate. Fix blade pact.

[Amechra]

I'd rather they didn't, because that has heavy world-building complications. My world's schools of magical thought and your world's schools of magical thought are going to be quite different, because schools of magical thought depend heavily on history and culture. Having abstract "here are ways wizards tend to categorize spells based on what they do" is moderately disconnected from setting, enough to pass. But the current ones and current spell <=> school assignments are not suited for balance at all.

I'm of the opinion that class-based systems work best when there is a strong implied setting, so I would view this as more of a sad-yet-acceptable casualty than a dealbreaker. It's probably for the best that I haven't actually been given this mandate. :p

I agree with you that the current spell schools are nonsensical, but having the Learned Caster have their philosophy of magic as their subclass has a certain je ne sais quoi.


I'm curious what you mean about spells being treated like magic items. How would that work? Is the spell inside a magic item (e.g. a wand), and anyone can cast the spell by using the item? Can anyone just cast the spell at any time, as long as one person in the party knows the spell? What if you split the party? And how would caster classes work under this paradigm? I think there's a lot of interesting potential here.

The big thing is that there wouldn't be caster classes, at least in the sense that D&D has traditionally had them.

The idea in my head (in rough terms) is something like:


Everyone can cast ritual spells or spells from "scrolls". There might also be cantrips that you can learn for a bit more magical flare, but they'd be more like alternative weapon/tool proficiencies than something that's locked to a specific class.
Some very basic spells can be purchased as normal equipment (so you could start off with the ritual inscription for Identify or a Scroll of Cure Wounds). The rest of them would be treated like treasure — much like how getting a Flame Tongue is something you usually have to talk to your DM about, picking up a Scroll of Fireball is a thing you go out on a quest for (or whatever).
You can attune to spells, which lets you cast the spell encoded into the inscription/scroll without actually needing the item and without burning it out. Depending on your subclass, you might get the ability to "refresh" a spell more often, or more attunement slots to shove spells into.
If I did design a "caster class", it'd probably look more like the Artificer than, say, a Wizard.


The thought here is that anyone can splash a little spellcasting mojo into their character, without it being a pretty massive sub-system that only a handful of classes really get to play around with. I'm also imagining that stuff like pacts or divine magic would probably be designed more like a cross between Channel Divinities and the Theros Piety system — the basic idea being that subsystems should be relatively light, and also not be restricted to specific classes.

At this point, though, I'd basically be rebuilding Earthdawn in a 5e shell, which is probably not worth it.

[Angelalex242]

I kinda wanna add a couple Final Fantasy style classes.

Like Dragoon (Polearm preferring guys who jump, then use falling momentum to deal extra damage. Presumably, this extra damage is effectively sneak attack, and it does double damage to anything not touching the ground: fliers, floaters, etc.) Mobility would be monk like, except it emphasizes vertical mobility.
And perhaps SOLDIER (Fighters with Warlock like spellcasting, except their spells known depend on specialized items called 'materia.' They can equip a number of materia equal to their proficiency mod, or perhaps double proficiency mod.)

[dafrca]

This is a dangerous subject. If I change too much then I begin to ask if I am still playing D&D or have a begun to create my own game (ala the clones and pathfinders).

Is that really a bad thing, though? :smallwink:


No, not at all. One look at my RPG collection woudl prove I do not have issues with Clone games at all. I just like to be honest with myself about where I am going when I play these fun mind exercises.

So often I think about wanting to change X, Y, Z, A, B, and C, and then I wonder what do I really want. D&D or some clone game with things made the way I wish they were. But no, changing things to the point of it no longer being really D&D is not in and of itself a bad thing in my opinion. :smallbiggrin:

[Leon]

I kinda wanna add a couple Final Fantasy style classes.

Like Dragoon (Polearm preferring guys who jump, then use falling momentum to deal extra damage. Presumably, this extra damage is effectively sneak attack, and it does double damage to anything not touching the ground: fliers, floaters, etc.) Mobility would be monk like, except it emphasizes vertical mobility.
And perhaps SOLDIER (Fighters with Warlock like spellcasting, except their spells known depend on specialized items called 'materia.' They can equip a number of materia equal to their proficiency mod, or perhaps double proficiency mod.)

There is quite a nice 5e Homebrew Final Fantasy 14 collection that has the Dragoon in it. As well as all the other classes from the game.

[Angelalex242]

There is quite a nice 5e Homebrew Final Fantasy 14 collection that has the Dragoon in it. As well as all the other classes from the game.

Neat! Can you link it?

[rickayelm]

If I could rewrite the classes there would be a lot more of them. They have cut almost 90 percent of the classes from the game, I just don't understand why people want to cut even more classes.

There is no way to take a class and turn it into a subclass without throwing most of what made the class what it was in the garbage.

[Leon]

Neat! Can you link it?

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LsDqsNbupzeLhkTIcPv

If you Download it as a PDF it wont have the issues with things going off the side of the page

[rickayelm]

Now for some details.

1. Psion should be its own class, wether it is ki based or spell point based I don't think it should use spell slots.
2. I would bring back the Binder. It was my favorite class from 3.5.
3. A half caster spell blade class. I would put the eldritch knight, hex blade, arcane archer, and bladesinger in it as subclasses.
4. Another thing I would love is for the Incarnum system to be brought back.
5. One of the things I liked from pathfinder was the Shifter class. They had a couple of problems with execution, but the idea of a pure shapeshifter class is something that I love.

As for existing classes.
1. Monks need a better capstone, and the 4 elements monk needs its abilities to be cheaper at low levels and scale better so they are viable at high levels.
2. I would make a warleader subclass for fighter that was based around buffing its allies.
3. Warlock needs to have one more spell slot
I would go 1, 2, 7, 12, 17. This would allow them to have more staying power in the mid levels. Most games never get to max level and they really need help in the middle. Another thing, they should have more freedom with Mystic Arcanum. They got rid of spell chains in fifth edition which makes it so the warlock can't get access to some effects at high level that they really should have. For example they should be able to have the 8th level version of summon greater demon or create undead. Or the ninth level version of planar binding for some long term demon minions. But right now they can't do that.
4. Either all sorcerer and ranger subclasses get bonus spells known, or none of them do. As it is now the gap between subclasses is to large.
5. I would definitely make some artificer subclasses based around traditional fantasy magic item crafters. For example I think of the crafters of the rings of power in LOTR as artificers. The elves who created the rings of the elven kings, or the palantirs weren't wizards they were craftsmen who created and used magical artifacts. Of the 4 existing subclasses 2 of them have robots, this makes sense in Eberron, but in a lot of settings it doesn't make sense.

[Sorinth]

This is fair. I see your point about "Well once we codify X, then you've got to have Feat Y or else you can't do X." Some additional guidance in the DMG could definitely be useful.

But to cite the "How Should D&D Handle Maneuvers" thread from some time ago, I do also think that there's a lot of debates about how to make martials feel punchier and more interesting, and without maneuvers, we're leaving a lot of thematic martial real estate on the table.

Yeah my general philosophy is to avoid the whole you need X feature and instead you can attempt something similar but without X feature it won't be as effective and/or cost more. So the disarm that anyone can do costs your attack, the maneuver doesn't so the maneuver is much better but you don't need the maneuver to try and disarm someone. But it's understandably difficult to balance, and 5e likely has ended up in a situations where they made the non-feature based stuff to weak compared to a regular attack. Outside of a grappler build it's rare to make a Shove attack to knock an enemy prone because it's too weak, but making it stronger and then the BM Maneuver or Shield Master feat become less good so it's not easy to get right.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd rather they didn't Likewise but for a different reason.

I prefer magic to be a little more underground than mainstream. Less Wizard of Earthsea (Ged got his start at the wizard school) and more like Fafhrd/Grey Mouser stories.

I'm fine with "spellcasting" being the primary "subsystem" (for simplicity if nothing else), although I'd like to move it away from explicitly spells and more "supernatural effects." So that your barbarian can interact with this subsystem without having the thematics of casting spells from spell slots. Basically "spells" would become "supernatural effects" that may be produced via spells or may be produced via class or race features or feats or whatever. Without the tie to slots, components, etc. There is a timid step in this direction with the Path of the Totem Warrior abilities to commune with nature, speak with animals bit, but your proposal strikes a chord with me. Barbarians do have what appear to be magical powers (although the wild magic barbarian from Tasha's random effects doesn't feel right to me, yet. We have one such in our Curse of Strahd campaign and so far, the feel is off for me. The player is still growing into it...)

[Psyren]

I like the idea of the Binder - but having a laundry list of Vestiges to bind with and mix and match dozens and dozens of unique abilities doesn't really fit with 5e's streamlined design, at least for me.

But I think it's possible to make something that feels like a Binder without the complexity. The core aspects of the Binder for me are:

- 5th-man generalist that can adjust their playstyle to fill any of the party's needs on a daily basis.
- Pays for that versatility by being weaker overall at each role than a specialist, but still competent.
- Has the added drawback of occasionally having to act in ways that might be contrary to the party's interests, or in the extreme, potentially become an NPC under the DM's control.
- Charisma-based, both for the thematic fit as well as increasing the odds that #3 ends up mattering because they'll be in a face or interaction spotlight role.

With all that in mind, I'd reach for something closer to Pathfinder's Medium class as inspiration, which plays like a Binder-lite, boiling down dozens of vestiges into a handful of iconic archetypes, and lets the player and DM agree on suitable taboos rather than coming up with specific ones for each pact.

[Amnestic]

I like the idea of the Binder - but having a laundry list of Vestiges to bind with and mix and match dozens and dozens of unique abilities doesn't really fit with 5e's streamlined design, at least for me.

Mmm, I do see where that comes from, and I kind of agree. On the other hand I see at least 3 'systems' that aren't spellcasting (BM maneuvers, warlock invocations, artificer infusions) that are generally well received and not too difficult to play around with.

There's certainly more breadth to a Binder's vestiges than those three, granted, but Vestiges on their own aren't 'more' complex than a spell list. It's just that we're used to spell lists and they're ubiquitous.

The Middle Finger of Vecna Binder (https://mfov.magehandpress.com/2016/06/book-of-binding.html) is probably the most well known homebrew attempt and I do think it hits a generally decent sweet spot thematically. Mechanically I've got a few nitpicks/gripes with it and its subclasses (I don't think the unarmed one is worth anything at all), but the inclusion of short form 'vestige cards' at the end is real nice for swift reference for players and generally it feels pretty solid I think?

[Kane0]

Id probably leave the classes largely as-is except for adjusting features and spell lists.

Subclasses I would pare back down to about 5-6 for each class. Anything that doesnt make the cut can be broken down to use in rebalancing or repurposed into feats, spells, fighting styles, ACFs, etc

Re: Binder
You could probably make a new patron, boon and set of invocations for warlock that would get most of that done, or even a bard subclass with spells and uses for inspiration now that college of spirits is a thing. Both are already 5th-member charisma types with a good defree of versatility

[Ganryu]

I'd give Ranger's something to do. Part of their identity. They kinda feel disjointed. They have spell slots, they have attacks, but they don't work well together. Compare that to, like, paladin. Paladin's can use spell slots for smite damage, and that's what most people do with paladin spell slots. I'm convinced some paladin players aren't aware they HAVE spells.


I say give them herbs they can use in combat, a more melee version of druid. Give effects to your attacks. Have Ensnaring Strike not cost a bonus action. Have poisons as you strike, heal as a secondary effect as you hit someone, gather 'carvings' as you attack an enemy. FEEL like a master of the wilds who uses everything at their disposal, who sets traps as they attack at the same time.


Honestly, part of this could be done with a better spell selection for rangers. 90% of what is holding them back is their spells kinda suck. Hunter's mark: Good. Ensnaring Strike: Underrated and good. Swift Quiver: Good, but only for archers. Very little else is 'good'.


But I say meld their spell slots with their action economy like paladin's. Doesn't have to do additional damage, I vote debuffs and they'd have an identity, and are good.

[MrCharlie]

I like the idea of the Binder - but having a laundry list of Vestiges to bind with and mix and match dozens and dozens of unique abilities doesn't really fit with 5e's streamlined design, at least for me.

But I think it's possible to make something that feels like a Binder without the complexity. The core aspects of the Binder for me are:

- 5th-man generalist that can adjust their playstyle to fill any of the party's needs on a daily basis.
- Pays for that versatility by being weaker overall at each role than a specialist, but still competent.
- Has the added drawback of occasionally having to act in ways that might be contrary to the party's interests, or in the extreme, potentially become an NPC under the DM's control.
- Charisma-based, both for the thematic fit as well as increasing the odds that #3 ends up mattering because they'll be in a face or interaction spotlight role.

With all that in mind, I'd reach for something closer to Pathfinder's Medium class as inspiration, which plays like a Binder-lite, boiling down dozens of vestiges into a handful of iconic archetypes, and lets the player and DM agree on suitable taboos rather than coming up with specific ones for each pact.
Honestly, the core class theme of Binder seems very similar to a warlock. You could easily modify the Warlock chassis to include a flexible "Patron" via binding, and then build the actual mechanics around that. In fact, I'd argue that a warlock is just a specialized Binder that binds a single vestige and never varies. Depth at the cost of Breadth.

In my own schema of Class-->Archetype-->Specialization, I'd put Binder as the Archetype then Warlock as the specialization of that archetype. A kind of Binder.

But if I was sticking to current 5e, I'd make binder a warlock pact. I'd model each vestige by having fewer, but more generic, vestiges, and letting the warlock swap between long rests. Instead of a specific, named, vestige like Amon or Acerak, I'd use "The Wrathful King" or "The Treacherous Vizier". I'd work each vestiges bonuses by giving the warlock more invocations from a set list for each vestige, flexibility with known invocations, a truncated spell list for each vestige that is always known when bound to that vestige, and a modification of the pact boon (changing it when needed). Plus the immunities that Binder gets thrown in there at level 10 or something.

I think that fits the idea of the old-school binder mechanically at least decently, and mimics their effects-some always on abilities often including skill boosts, many of which can be modeled by invocations, and a few spell-like abilities.

[Sorinth]

I'd give Ranger's something to do. Part of their identity. They kinda feel disjointed. They have spell slots, they have attacks, but they don't work well together. Compare that to, like, paladin. Paladin's can use spell slots for smite damage, and that's what most people do with paladin spell slots. I'm convinced some paladin players aren't aware they HAVE spells.


I say give them herbs they can use in combat, a more melee version of druid. Give effects to your attacks. Have Ensnaring Strike not cost a bonus action. Have poisons as you strike, heal as a secondary effect as you hit someone, gather 'carvings' as you attack an enemy. FEEL like a master of the wilds who uses everything at their disposal, who sets traps as they attack at the same time.


Honestly, part of this could be done with a better spell selection for rangers. 90% of what is holding them back is their spells kinda suck. Hunter's mark: Good. Ensnaring Strike: Underrated and good. Swift Quiver: Good, but only for archers. Very little else is 'good'.


But I say meld their spell slots with their action economy like paladin's. Doesn't have to do additional damage, I vote debuffs and they'd have an identity, and are good.

I think what hurts them the most is the concentration aspect of all their spells and the lower spell DC due to wis being a secondary stat.

The ironic part is I feel all the BA attack boost spells have concentration because they wanted to make it so that you didn't waste the spell if you missed. But instead of being helpful it's actually a hinderance because concentration is better spent on something else.

[Ganryu]

I think what hurts them the most is the concentration aspect of all their spells and the lower spell DC due to wis being a secondary stat.

The ironic part is I feel all the BA attack boost spells have concentration because they wanted to make it so that you didn't waste the spell if you missed. But instead of being helpful it's actually a hinderance because concentration is better spent on something else.

Agreed. I'd just change concentration to 'next attack that hits in the next minute'. That'd help a ton. I still feel they need more spells, and I would like something like smite, where they have their half casting as a resource, but I don't feel it should be pure damage.

[Sorinth]

Agreed. I'd just change concentration to 'next attack that hits in the next minute'. That'd help a ton. I still feel they need more spells, and I would like something like smite, where they have their half casting as a resource, but I don't feel it should be pure damage.

If I were rewriting it I would probably convert Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Zephyr Strike, Lightning Arrow into class features that would work sort of like a Paladin's smite, after a hit you could spend a spell slot to activate, and damage goes up based on slot used. I'd probably want something like 5-7 total options and you'd select a couple to start and gain more options as you level. I'd also make the ranged ones workable with melee as well.

There could still be a few attack spells like Conjure Barrage, but like a paladin a lot of your spell slots would be used on class features instead of actually casting them. In my mind the Ranger's spells/features would focus more on AoE type effects and the Paladin would focus on single targets. In essence the Ranger is who you call to save you from a horde of monsters and the Paladin is who you call to save you from a single powerful monster.

[Psyren]

Honestly, the core class theme of Binder seems very similar to a warlock. You could easily modify the Warlock chassis to include a flexible "Patron" via binding, and then build the actual mechanics around that. In fact, I'd argue that a warlock is just a specialized Binder that binds a single vestige and never varies. Depth at the cost of Breadth.

In my own schema of Class-->Archetype-->Specialization, I'd put Binder as the Archetype then Warlock as the specialization of that archetype. A kind of Binder.

But if I was sticking to current 5e, I'd make binder a warlock pact. I'd model each vestige by having fewer, but more generic, vestiges, and letting the warlock swap between long rests. Instead of a specific, named, vestige like Amon or Acerak, I'd use "The Wrathful King" or "The Treacherous Vizier". I'd work each vestiges bonuses by giving the warlock more invocations from a set list for each vestige, flexibility with known invocations, a truncated spell list for each vestige that is always known when bound to that vestige, and a modification of the pact boon (changing it when needed). Plus the immunities that Binder gets thrown in there at level 10 or something.

I think that fits the idea of the old-school binder mechanically at least decently, and mimics their effects-some always on abilities often including skill boosts, many of which can be modeled by invocations, and a few spell-like abilities.

My issue with Warlock-as-Binder is that I don't think they should be spellcasters, at least not innately. Or if they are, they should definitely not be full casters (even the weird form of "full casting" Warlocks get) with the full Warlock list. Vestiges should be their primary path to power.

In Pathfinder, Mediums are 1/3 casters natively - very weak, though not as weak in 5e - with the potential to get to 1/2 casting from two lists with the right binds. That's closer to what I envision, and that would necessitate a unique base.

[MrStabby]

So for me it comes down to differentiation. I want some slightly narrower themes for classes with slightly less overlap and more specialisation. Ideal worl is one where someone rarely steps on the toes of another.

So within the context of some general points:

1) There would be no class like the wizard that has such a breadth of spells. Any "wizard" class would need to focus more keenly on a paticular school.

2) Fewer abilities for adding spells to classes. No abilities like Magical Secrets. No access to spells from race or background. Instead more scope for swapping spell lists - or at least big blocks of them. (for example spell tags like "fire" and a cleric of a certain god would be able to select spells tagged "fire" instead of spells tagged "holy". And always, always what you lose should be missed. Class spell lists would be shrunk but "domain" type lists expanded. For martials - classes getting access to a narrower range of fighting styles and these being a bigger part of the class identity.

3) Martial classes should also play differently. At the moment they mostly feel like the attack action with some minor bonuses added on. More use of skills in combat (rather than just athletics) would be one way to open this up.

4) Push more power from the class to the subclass. A devotion pladin is still pretty similar to an ancients paladin as the key abilities (aura, extra attack, lay on lands, smites, weapon/armour proficiencies) come from the base class. Helping characters feel a bit different is important - especially with some key meachanical difference that make them actually play differently.

5) Remove some classes. Sorcerers are cool and powerful and all, but their very existance takes away the opportunity for metamagic for other classes. Metamagic, 3rd edition style or 5th edition style would be a useful differentiator. Imagine if different cleric domains got a different metamagic option built in for free or if you could take one of these to help specialise as a bard... just another way to help distingush characers. At the other end of the scale - the fighter. The fighter as a class is boring/bland and does very little that is special (more actions, more attacks, more feats - just mor of what so many other classes can do anyway), but more generous feats to add martial prowess to other classes instead might be useful.

6) More complexity in weapons. Rules that vary by more than just damage and number of hands.

So what classes would I make:

1) Inquisitor. A chance to blend a bit of rogue, caster, paldin together with a tighter thematic focus than the bard.

2) Bard. Seriously redone. The bard would lean in hard to the idea that the universe is powered by songs and stories and would be able to use this to their advantage

3) Barbarian. Raw physical power and how to abuse it. Think Strenght Check: the class.

4) Cleric. A good staple class from both a mechanical and RP perspecitve. I think arguably the best designed 5th edition class... up to 10th level. This shows what can be done. With the aforementioned shift from generic spells to a richer domain list and maybe some domain specific metamagics or fighting styles. Also choice of casting stat to be a Theologian, a Priest or a Charismatic Preacher. Can wrap up the paladin in this maybe.

5) Gladiator. More than a fighter - a showboater that can put on a good display, has a really well developed set of fighting styles and likely has some extra weapon specialisation to distinguish themselves.

6) Assassin. I think I prefer this to the current rogue. Rogue is fine and all but it nees some serious rebalancing for different pillars of play. Making assassin the core class ensures that there are sufficient combat mechanics a its core. The drive to subclasses can than go down the psionic assassin, poisoner, sharpshooter etc. paths.

7) Artificer. I hate the class and the theme as presented in Eberron, but objectively I think it has a place in the game. Being able to play Sauron is cool. Being able to play someone who crafts wards to bind spirits to protect them is cool. The stonemason that carves runic totems is cool. Making it work without the magitech flavour is also cool. I think the artificer may need a bit of a redesign (not least becaus it has no spells of its own), but the overall conept works.

8) Witch. The subtle magic user. The expert use of lower level effects and spells to just twist events in their favour and with a nice mix of curses, enchantments - maybe an illusion or two and possibly with subclasses around nature, healing and necromancy.

9) Hunter. A somewhat "purer" version of the ranger. More focussed and a real "tactical" warrior. Bonuses with nets, spears, hiding/ambushing. Better access to divination spells and abilities. Better bonuses for scouting/knowledge of prey

10) Magus. Largely a replacement for the wizard - as noted above, no broad access to all schools of magic. One core focus with the ability to pick up broader secondary spells from other schools from low spell levels.

11) Druid. Yeah, I think it needs a rework. Not sure what to do with this. With an ability to swap spell themes, and if nature is a theme, then a nature cleric would cover this well enough or a nature bard or whatever. I feel the game should let you build a druid - would it need to be its own class?


So no fighter, no sorcerer, no warlock (though I would envisage a bundle of spells with an "eldritch" tag that could be swapped in to build one), no monk (though a barbarian for physical prowess or a gladiator for very stylised combat or a multiclass of the two should cover it). No Paladin (though with some cleric options I could see this wrapped up there effectively)

[Draz74]

This is a dangerous subject. If I change too much then I begin to ask if I am still playing D&D or have a begun to create my own game (ala the clones and pathfinders).

Yup. This.

[Kane0]

Label it swords and sorcery?

[Psyren]

4. Another thing I would love is for the Incarnum system to be brought back.

I'm not sure how Incarnum would work in 5e. Part of the system's conceit in 3e was that everyone is expected to have a specific set of magic items in various slots by certain level thresholds. 5e is very much not that - magic items have been heavily de-emphasized and slots are nearly non-existent.

At best I could see Incarnum being an extension or refluff of the Artificer with their infusions, especially the Armorist.


5. One of the things I liked from pathfinder was the Shifter class. They had a couple of problems with execution, but the idea of a pure shapeshifter class is something that I love.

I loved the concept too. The execution not so much.

We have a sort of proto-shifter in the form of the Beast Path Barbarian. A shifter would be kind of like that, but getting additional utility shapes/forms, like being able to sprout wings or webbed toes and gills, shoot spikes or spit acid.



As for existing classes.
1. Monks need a better capstone, and the 4 elements monk needs its abilities to be cheaper at low levels and scale better so they are viable at high levels.
2. I would make a warleader subclass for fighter that was based around buffing its allies.
3. Warlock needs to have one more spell slot
I would go 1, 2, 7, 12, 17. This would allow them to have more staying power in the mid levels. Most games never get to max level and they really need help in the middle. Another thing, they should have more freedom with Mystic Arcanum. They got rid of spell chains in fifth edition which makes it so the warlock can't get access to some effects at high level that they really should have. For example they should be able to have the 8th level version of summon greater demon or create undead. Or the ninth level version of planar binding for some long term demon minions. But right now they can't do that.
4. Either all sorcerer and ranger subclasses get bonus spells known, or none of them do. As it is now the gap between subclasses is to large.
5. I would definitely make some artificer subclasses based around traditional fantasy magic item crafters. For example I think of the crafters of the rings of power in LOTR as artificers. The elves who created the rings of the elven kings, or the palantirs weren't wizards they were craftsmen who created and used magical artifacts. Of the 4 existing subclasses 2 of them have robots, this makes sense in Eberron, but in a lot of settings it doesn't make sense.

Agree with all these but a couple of tweaks:

1) I think each Mystic Arcanum "slot" should be allowed to either be used on the spell you picked for it, or to upcast one of your pact spells once. You don't get them back on a short rest so it's fine.

2) Artificer "robots" can easily be fluffed as golems, idols, magical sculptures or effigies. Think of the Komainu statues outside of Shinto temples or the Drust Wicker creatures animated by witch covens in World of Warcraft. You can do that without changing any of their stats at all; you choose their appearance so they can look more stony or wooden at your option.

3) Monk needs more than a better capstone imo. They shouldn't have to wait until 14th to become the king of saving throws (which even then they aren't really, Paladins are) and they feel really ki-starved early on, it needs to scale better.

[Amechra]

At best I could see Incarnum being an extension or refluff of the Artificer with their infusions, especially the Armorist.

I feel like it'd have to be a completely new subclass, honestly. Part of the cool factor of Incarnum is that you're creating stuff ex nihilo, after all.


3) Monk needs more than a better capstone imo. They shouldn't have to wait until 14th to become the king of saving throws (which even then they aren't really, Paladins are) and they feel really ki-starved early on, it needs to scale better.

The Monk just needs to be in a system that isn't intrinsically hostile to running around punching things in your birthday suit. Then it wouldn't need to spend its first few levels getting you up to snuff.

[Psyren]

I feel like it'd have to be a completely new subclass, honestly. Part of the cool factor of Incarnum is that you're creating stuff ex nihilo, after all.

Yeah I'm okay with that.


The Monk just needs to be in a system that isn't intrinsically hostile to running around punching things in your birthday suit. Then it wouldn't need to spend its first few levels getting you up to snuff.

You don't need to overhaul the system, it's just a tuning issue. Like, if the monk's unarmored AC was 13+Dex+Wis and they had d10 HD their defenses would be fine, strong even.

(I really don't understand why they have to make do with a d8 to begin with, are we really saying monks are less physical/athletic/hardy/outdoorsy than fighters and rangers? Do they exercise less? What?)

[Sorinth]

Yeah I'm okay with that.



You don't need to overhaul the system, it's just a tuning issue. Like, if the monk's unarmored AC was 13+Dex+Wis and they had d10 HD their defenses would be fine, strong even.

(I really don't understand why they have to make do with a d8 to begin with, are we really saying monks are less physical/athletic/hardy/outdoorsy than fighters and rangers? Do they exercise less? What?)

I believe the idea is that like Rogue they will position themselves so that they don't get attacked as often as a fighter. They also have a lots of defensive options that prevent damage like slow fall, deflect missile, evasion, Patient Defence, immunity to poison, etc... Each feature might not prevent a ton of damage, but given the difference in HP between d8 and d10 is a little over 1 per level they don't need to be preventing damage every fight to more then compensate for the reduced Hit Die size.

Frankly I'd rather see the Ranger drop to d8 then the Monk go up to d10 and so there would be clear skirmisher grouping.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I loved the concept too. The execution not so much.

We have a sort of proto-shifter in the form of the Beast Path Barbarian. A shifter would be kind of like that, but getting additional utility shapes/forms, like being able to sprout wings or webbed toes and gills, shoot spikes or spit acid.


I wrote up a "protean" which was a shifter focused on those secondary changes. Not so much changing into beasts, but growing claws, spikes, wings, etc. Basically a partial "mutation" based rogue-like skirmisher. There's a post up in the homebrew forum about it. So far no one's said anything...got a player going to playtest it soon. Will probably need more work.

As for Incarnum, my big issue is with the mechanics. Tons and tons of little, fiddly, spread-sheet-level stuff. Not much big and dramatic. I wrote up something inspired by the concept (creating forms of things), but the mechanics are quite different and I don't have them nailed down right.

[Amnestic]

(I really don't understand why they have to make do with a d8 to begin with, are we really saying monks are less physical/athletic/hardy/outdoorsy than fighters and rangers? Do they exercise less? What?)

D8 is the "skirmisher" hit dice - rogues are the same. That's what I assume is their intention, at least. Whether it works in execution is another matter.

Encouraging skirimshing is neat but the fact that SotW/PD both cost ki is pretty frustrating early on, especially when up against Cunning Action. There's a gazillion monk 'fixes' out there, not gonna bother throwing my 2 copper on the pile.

[Pex]

I'm with you halfway, but in my experience, DMs are already doing that now.

"I wanna throw Bugbear A into Bugbear B," right. DM says "Ehhhh ok, only Bugbear A will take damage, and it's only your Str modifier. And they're not knocked prone at all."

I know what you're gonna say -- "But Abra, that's a sucky example and you know it. DMs are supposed to encourage fun and flavorful combat actions based on circumstances." And you're right! Heck, I'm right there with you. But they don't, in my experience. If the rules aren't there, DMs default to "I don't want this to become a thing," and nerf the heck out of it, subsequently making it less attractive than just attacking normally.

There's a very good chance you play with DMs that don't do this -- in which case, I concede that. But when I've played in games with other DMs, it's rarely the norm. And I don't mean to sound like I fault them for it -- I get where they're coming from.

Exactly. I understand the angst of having too many rules, but the solution is not very little to none let the DM make it up. (5E's problem.) The issue is where a rule applies. 3E/Pathfinder's problem was "You need a feat for that". Many things any character should be able to do, and it's fine for particular classes to do specific things better. Once you find the proper place to put them, which does include feats, define how it works. DM adjudication is still needed, but advice to the DM needs to be worded well. Emphasize to the DM it's ok to say No but not always say No and also not Yes with so many restrictions it might as well be No. No rules can stop a bad DM, but words on the page more eloquently put than I'm writing now goes a long way to prevent future bad DMs.


Arcane Archer: burninate, it's a stupid sub class, play a ranger.
That stupid dwarf only SCAG barbarian, battlerager: burninate, stupid.
Hexblade: burninate. Fix blade pact.

Silly me. I forgot about Warlock.

Definitely give Blade Pact medium armor and shield proficiency. I'm ok with still needing ST or DX for hit and damage but change Life Drinker to no 12th level minimum and it's Force damage. Hexblade can go away.

[Dienekes]

I believe the idea is that like Rogue they will position themselves so that they don't get attacked as often as a fighter. They also have a lots of defensive options that prevent damage like slow fall, deflect missile, evasion, Patient Defence, immunity to poison, etc... Each feature might not prevent a ton of damage, but given the difference in HP between d8 and d10 is a little over 1 per level they don't need to be preventing damage every fight to more then compensate for the reduced Hit Die size.

Frankly I'd rather see the Ranger drop to d8 then the Monk go up to d10 and so there would be clear skirmisher grouping.

Since we're talking about redesigning classes. Skirmishers in general as a concept probably need to be rebalanced.

Way I figure, the goal of a Skirmisher is fine. It takes down priority targets either through damage or disables. Unfortunately, there are already two other types of characters that can specialize in taking down such targets: Archers and Mages. And in general, they do the job at a distance, so they're much safer.

The Skirmisher, being melee, takes a much higher risk to get the job done. So they should, in theory, get a much higher reward. But they really don't. As far as I can tell, their damage on a round for round basis is about the same as your standard front-liner. But it really shouldn't be. It should be in general weaker than a frontliner under normal circumstances with the opportunity to deal massive damage when you get to your target. Really, the effects of like Smite or Action Surge, those are the kinds of abilities the Skirmisher class would need to do their job effectively. And neither Rogue or Monk have them.

On the contrary, Rogue's damage is scaled in such a way that they're expected to Sneak Attack about every round. It's not really much of a burst, and it's not even all that high after the first few levels. While the Monk's damage is directly limited by their Bonus Action which, as the Skirmisher, they're generally using to move into position in the first place.

A good Skirmisher should have the follow as a basis. What they need at level 2 at the latest:

1) A means of recognizing and then moving safely along the battlefield to a key position. Either through pure speed or teleportation.
2) A means of doing something to down a target for pretty much the rest of combat. Something very powerful that they simply cannot do every round of combat. It has to be done against the key targets of the encounter.
3) Defensive abilities that allow them to survive these quick dangerous bursts. These abilities should not be good against sustained damage like a frontliner. And it should not mess with the action economy needed to perform the takedown. If the Bonus Action is being used to get into position. And it is also being used to actually do the damage you're trying to do. Then it cannot be used for the defensive ability. Which means you can't use your survival tool when they're performing their strike, which is exactly when they're supposed to be in the most dangerous position on the battlefield.
4) A means of leaving the danger area safely after the strike has been performed.

And then these abilities need to scale against the target's they're going to face. Bonus Action Dash and Disengage may work great at low levels. But when you're facing a demigod who is flying 100 feet in the air, and their every word alters the fabric of reality. Bonus Action Dash just isn't cutting it anymore.

I don't think either Monk or Rogue really have all that. When going melee both of their combat effectiveness is actually best when they are not moving in and getting out of dangerous positions. They're at their best when they can plop down next to someone and Sneak Attack every round, or use their action and bonus action all to make their attacks and get their Stunning Strike off (which only lasts a round so if the creature isn't actually killed you kinda have to stay next to it).

[Amechra]

Honestly, the problem with having "skirmisher" as a role is that most of the actual reasons that you'd have skirmishers (like, say, making people abandon favorable positions or break formation) aren't really things that D&D cares about. So, instead, they have an incredibly situational use ("um, they... go after the wizard that sometimes hangs out in the back?"), and are otherwise kinda meh.

Then again, part of the issue is that ranged weapon/spell users are just as accurate while moving around as they are while standing entirely still, and that there are easily accessible ways to simply ignore the loss of accuracy for stuff like "your target is really far away", "only your target's left arm is visible", or "your target is currently trying to stab you in the face". And don't get me started on the fact that spellcasters have absolutely no range penalties on their spells. Then again, D&D is not alone on any of this.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, the problem with having "skirmisher" as a role is that most of the actual reasons that you'd have skirmishers (like, say, making people abandon favorable positions or break formation) aren't really things that D&D cares about. So, instead, they have an incredibly situational use ("um, they... go after the wizard that sometimes hangs out in the back?"), and are otherwise kinda meh.

Then again, part of the issue is that ranged weapon/spell users are just as accurate while moving around as they are while standing entirely still, and that there are easily accessible ways to simply ignore the loss of accuracy for stuff like "your target is really far away", "only your target's left arm is visible", or "your target is currently trying to stab you in the face". And don't get me started on the fact that spellcasters have absolutely no range penalties on their spells. Then again, D&D is not alone on any of this.

I mostly agree, but I do think there is use in taking down a key target right now. Now it should be the wizard in the back certainly. But if the key target is the big bruiser in the front then that is what their abilities should work toward. That's why I advocate absolutely massive damage and a better disable. As of now their damage isn't enough to take the big guy down. And Monk's disable is Con save, so, it's not great as a disable against such targets either.

[MrCharlie]

There is one benefit to being a melee skirmisher over an archer-Reaction attacks. The problem is that, usually, reaction attacks are a minor part of damage. You have to optimize for them. Optimized reaction attack builds (I.E. Rogue with some martial levels) are actually very effective at moving through the frontline, reaching the backline, and sticking to vulnerable targets while running from tougher ones that split off to rescue them.

There are other blank-map skirmishing builds, and my personal favorite is an oath of vengeance PAM who boosts his speed so you can't approach him-but those rely on getting attacks in melee when the enemy can't reciprocate, which relies on the foe acting like an idiot or being tactically inflexible. The only thing they gain over ranged skirmishers is they get to swing bigger sticks, and swinging bigger sticks in 5e is laughably small damage.

However, an optimized "skirmisher" can also just sit in the frontline and take it, which is part of why they are effective.

[Amechra]

which relies on the foe acting like an idiot or being tactically inflexible

The thing is... that''s kinda what a skirmishing force is actually for in real life? You use them to "convince" an enemy force to either keep "taking damage", or to do the tactically unwise thing and break formation. It's just that, due to how D&D (and, to be clear, a lot of other games) handle combat, doing so is kinda useless.

[Dienekes]

The thing is... that''s kinda what a skirmishing force is actually for in real life? You use them to "convince" an enemy force to either keep "taking damage", or to do the tactically unwise thing and break formation. It's just that, due to how D&D (and, to be clear, a lot of other games) handle combat, doing so is kinda useless.

So, if we wanted to do actual skirmishing, rather than -well- assassination is probably the closest to what I described, wouldn't the goal then to be giving them crowd control abilities and debuffs then?

[Amechra]

So, if we wanted to do actual skirmishing, rather than -well- assassination is probably the closest to what I described, wouldn't the goal then to be giving them crowd control abilities and debuffs then?

Pretty much.

[MrCharlie]

So, if we wanted to do actual skirmishing, rather than -well- assassination is probably the closest to what I described, wouldn't the goal then to be giving them crowd control abilities and debuffs then?
Oh, you can do this with a battlemaster. Goading attack, tripping attack-it's reasonably effective.

There just isn't any reason to be in melee and do it.

[Dienekes]

Oh, you can do this with a battlemaster. Goading attack, tripping attack-it's reasonably effective.

There just isn't any reason to be in melee and do it.

You can do it with a caster easier.

I would not call either a skirmisher though.


Pretty much.

For the record, I rather enjoy your focus on the actual historical term rather than what it tends to be used for in gaming. Reminds me of my own annoyance at what Final Fantasy keeps calling dragoons.

[MrCharlie]

You can do it with a caster easier.

I would not call either a skirmisher though.
If you're ready to spend spells I guess. At that point you're better off going for actual disabling CC rather than CC meant to mildly impede enemies and get them to follow you, which is what I think is being described.

[Amechra]

If you're ready to spend spells I guess. At that point you're better off going for actual disabling CC rather than CC meant to mildly impede enemies and get them to follow you, which is what I think is being described.

This is, sadly, a point where D&D and real life go their separate ways. In a real battle, skirmishers would be used to set up a bad choice for your enemies. Either they have to break out of their formation to go after them (which makes them vulnerable as a whole), or they have to sit there and let your forces pelt them with things. You use them because they help break morale.

The thing is that D&D doesn't really do formations or morale. The closest you get is something like Hobgoblins, where they get bonus damage if they're ganging up on their target, and that's not really the same thing.


For the record, I rather enjoy your focus on the actual historical term rather than what it tends to be used for in gaming. Reminds me of my own annoyance at what Final Fantasy keeps calling dragoons.

Thanks. I feel like I'm being a bit anal here, but I also feel like this is a case where the gaming version is actively less fun and interesting than something closer to what it's trying to mimic.

[Sorinth]

Since we're talking about redesigning classes. Skirmishers in general as a concept probably need to be rebalanced.

Way I figure, the goal of a Skirmisher is fine. It takes down priority targets either through damage or disables. Unfortunately, there are already two other types of characters that can specialize in taking down such targets: Archers and Mages. And in general, they do the job at a distance, so they're much safer.

The Skirmisher, being melee, takes a much higher risk to get the job done. So they should, in theory, get a much higher reward. But they really don't. As far as I can tell, their damage on a round for round basis is about the same as your standard front-liner. But it really shouldn't be. It should be in general weaker than a frontliner under normal circumstances with the opportunity to deal massive damage when you get to your target. Really, the effects of like Smite or Action Surge, those are the kinds of abilities the Skirmisher class would need to do their job effectively. And neither Rogue or Monk have them.

On the contrary, Rogue's damage is scaled in such a way that they're expected to Sneak Attack about every round. It's not really much of a burst, and it's not even all that high after the first few levels. While the Monk's damage is directly limited by their Bonus Action which, as the Skirmisher, they're generally using to move into position in the first place.

A good Skirmisher should have the follow as a basis. What they need at level 2 at the latest:

1) A means of recognizing and then moving safely along the battlefield to a key position. Either through pure speed or teleportation.
2) A means of doing something to down a target for pretty much the rest of combat. Something very powerful that they simply cannot do every round of combat. It has to be done against the key targets of the encounter.
3) Defensive abilities that allow them to survive these quick dangerous bursts. These abilities should not be good against sustained damage like a frontliner. And it should not mess with the action economy needed to perform the takedown. If the Bonus Action is being used to get into position. And it is also being used to actually do the damage you're trying to do. Then it cannot be used for the defensive ability. Which means you can't use your survival tool when they're performing their strike, which is exactly when they're supposed to be in the most dangerous position on the battlefield.
4) A means of leaving the danger area safely after the strike has been performed.

And then these abilities need to scale against the target's they're going to face. Bonus Action Dash and Disengage may work great at low levels. But when you're facing a demigod who is flying 100 feet in the air, and their every word alters the fabric of reality. Bonus Action Dash just isn't cutting it anymore.

I don't think either Monk or Rogue really have all that. When going melee both of their combat effectiveness is actually best when they are not moving in and getting out of dangerous positions. They're at their best when they can plop down next to someone and Sneak Attack every round, or use their action and bonus action all to make their attacks and get their Stunning Strike off (which only lasts a round so if the creature isn't actually killed you kinda have to stay next to it).

I'm not sure I totally agree that skirmishers are the assassin/sniper who gets in behind enemy lines and takes out high value targets. As others have said getting the enemy take suboptimal actions and/or softening them up before the real attack is a much bigger part of a skirmishers job.

Since you can't really goad an enemy into poor decisions unless the DM wants to RP that the next best thing is to impose a condition that makes all/most actions suboptimal. For example the mechanics of Ancestral Protectors is actually great skirmishing abilities. Put that on a monk/rogue darts in imposes that condition and darts out. The enemy either moves and goes after the skirmisher taking an or they attack the main target at disadvantage, it's a lose lose situation that is at the heart of skirmishing. You could easily do a something similar to cover the softening up, instead of disadvantage you give all allies advantage on their attack rolls for a turn.

Making the Rogue/Monk the kings of mundane debuffers would address the whole DPR debates and give them a more defined role. Monk would do it revamped stunning strike, hands of harm type abilities where you add to your attacks, and Rogues would be the ones doing dirty tricks like throwing dirt in an opponents eye to blind them for a round.

[Dienekes]

I'm not sure I totally agree that skirmishers are the assassin/sniper who gets in behind enemy lines and takes out high value targets. As others have said getting the enemy take suboptimal actions and/or softening them up before the real attack is a much bigger part of a skirmishers job.

In the real world, yes. In D&D, I kinda think the designated "skirmish" characters do the forced suboptimal pecking action even worse than they do assassinations.



Since you can't really goad an enemy into poor decisions unless the DM wants to RP that the next best thing is to impose a condition that makes all/most actions suboptimal. For example the mechanics of Ancestral Protectors is actually great skirmishing abilities. Put that on a monk/rogue darts in imposes that condition and darts out. The enemy either moves and goes after the skirmisher taking an or they attack the main target at disadvantage, it's a lose lose situation that is at the heart of skirmishing. You could easily do a something similar to cover the softening up, instead of disadvantage you give all allies advantage on their attack rolls for a turn.

Making the Rogue/Monk the kings of mundane debuffers would address the whole DPR debates and give them a more defined role. Monk would do it revamped stunning strike, hands of harm type abilities where you add to your attacks, and Rogues would be the ones doing dirty tricks like throwing dirt in an opponents eye to blind them for a round.

That said, I have no issue with giving Monks/Rogues potentially all new features all about being mundane debuff specialists. But I would say this:

The debuffs now have to be balanced around what a caster can do. And again, since the melee skirmisher is taking a greater risk, they have to get greater reward or there is little point using them over the caster in the first place.

You will also get push back because "Rogues have always had Sneak Attack" crowd. But honestly, I don't really care about them.

[Sorinth]

In the real world, yes. In D&D, I kinda think the designated "skirmish" characters do the forced suboptimal pecking action even worse than they do assassinations.



That said, I have no issue with giving Monks/Rogues potentially all new features all about being mundane debuff specialists. But I would say this:

The debuffs now have to be balanced around what a caster can do. And again, since the melee skirmisher is taking a greater risk, they have to get greater reward or there is little point using them over the caster in the first place.

You will also get push back because "Rogues have always had Sneak Attack" crowd. But honestly, I don't really care about them.

For sure there needs to be a level of balance with casters. Presumably it would be more at-will then casting spells and would being doing damage in addition to the debuff whereas many spells only provide the debuff.

In terms of greater reward for being in melee, I think that's bigger then the skirmish role. Fix it across the board don't just fix it for skirmish class/subclasses. I think a big mistake in that regards was how they handled Archery FS and Sharpshooter, if Cover actually mattered then there would already be an inherent greater reward. I'd even boost cover and have the Dex save bonus be for all saving throws. Then there's also apply the rules, how often do we DMs give out partial cover when there's a fireball because frankly it probably should apply much more often. If we had a situation where in combat say 2/3rds of ranged and spells were impacted by the +2 partial cover bonus that would be a big balancing factor. The problem is you want a system that is quick and simple, I'm as guilty as the next one in mostly ignoring the cover rules especially with regards to AoE spells.

[Kane0]

In terms of greater reward for being in melee, I think that's bigger then the skirmish role. Fix it across the board don't just fix it for skirmish class/subclasses.

Aye, ranged attackers can hit just as accurately, just as often and just as hard as melee attackers if not more so. Spellcasters also, although they have resource expenditure and often force saves instead of bothering with attack rolls.

Make ranged attackers have to contend more with cover, range and movement, and give melee an inherent damage advantage.

[Woggle]

In terms of greater reward for being in melee, I think that's bigger then the skirmish role. Fix it across the board don't just fix it for skirmish class/subclasses. I think a big mistake in that regards was how they handled Archery FS and Sharpshooter, if Cover actually mattered then there would already be an inherent greater reward. I'd even boost cover and have the Dex save bonus be for all saving throws. Then there's also apply the rules, how often do we DMs give out partial cover when there's a fireball because frankly it probably should apply much more often. If we had a situation where in combat say 2/3rds of ranged and spells were impacted by the +2 partial cover bonus that would be a big balancing factor. The problem is you want a system that is quick and simple, I'm as guilty as the next one in mostly ignoring the cover rules especially with regards to AoE spells.

I certainly agree with this, but fireball isn't a good example since it explicitly ignores cover. In my opinion it shouldn't. Why does fireball get to ignore cover when lightning bolt doesn't? I feel they should be reversed in that regard.

[Sorinth]

I certainly agree with this, but fireball isn't a good example since it explicitly ignores cover. In my opinion it shouldn't. Why does fireball get to ignore cover when lightning bolt doesn't? I feel they should be reversed in that regard.

I guess that depends what "spreads around corners" really means in game terms. I can certainly buy the argument that it negates cover, but on the other hand it doesn't explicitly state that it ignores cover. So I can see the argument that without that qualifier being around the corner would mean no save needed at all so ruling that it spreads around corners merely makes them have makes them have a target but since nothing states they lose cover they still gain the cover bonus to Dex saves. For example, does spread around corner allow fireball to hit targets on the other side of a closed door if there is a 1" gap between the door and the floor? If not how big a gap is required? But I guess it's besides the point and not really on topic for this thread.

[Amechra]

Honestly, if we're going to have "skirmisher" classes and "frontliner" classes, it's kinda silly to then go "but spellcasters can still fill any role, as long as they pick the right spells". If debuffs are a "skirmisher" thing, then debuff spells should be restricted to "skirmisher" spellcasters.

[Sorinth]

Honestly, if we're going to have "skirmisher" classes and "frontliner" classes, it's kinda silly to then go "but spellcasters can still fill any role, as long as they pick the right spells". If debuffs are a "skirmisher" thing, then debuff spells should be restricted to "skirmisher" spellcasters.

There's certainly a case for being more restrictive with the spell list based on subclasses. That way Evoker wouldn't have have too much buff/debuff spells, whereas Enchanter would have those buff/debuff spells but not much in terms of damage.

[MrCharlie]

There's certainly a case for being more restrictive with the spell list based on subclasses. That way Evoker wouldn't have have too much buff/debuff spells, whereas Enchanter would have those buff/debuff spells but not much in terms of damage.
So my personal class fantasy for spellcasters can fall into four categories.

1. Battlefield control (controlling what enemies can do and positioning allies to do more of what they do).
2. Artillery (Boom.)
3. Minion summoning (Night of the living dead/Fate series).
4. Support magic (Removing conditions that keep allies from doing what they do, making allies better at what they do).

Adding a "Skirmisher" archetype to that seems...Unneeded at best. Control already CC enemies, and it's a fine class fantasy.

I think there is room for two "skirmishers", in the rules.

A. A primarily-melee skirmisher who is less survivable but more reactive in combat than a "frontline" character, and which acts as an assassin.

B. A primarily-ranged skirmisher who interacts heavily with (and is thwarted by) vision, cover, and stealth, and which has the ability to hinder and confuse enemies while attacking them.

For the first, strong reactions that allow the character to counter enemy actions or exploit weaknesses in their actions are a must. For the second, abilities that add conditions on attacks are a must. It's possible to do the first but it requires specific builds, and most of the support for the second is half-baked-either too few uses, or uses a resource better used just killing the foe.

[MrCharlie]

There's certainly a case for being more restrictive with the spell list based on subclasses. That way Evoker wouldn't have have too much buff/debuff spells, whereas Enchanter would have those buff/debuff spells but not much in terms of damage.
I'd rather not go back to the days of min-maxing spell schools, please.


Honestly, if we're going to have "skirmisher" classes and "frontliner" classes, it's kinda silly to then go "but spellcasters can still fill any role, as long as they pick the right spells". If debuffs are a "skirmisher" thing, then debuff spells should be restricted to "skirmisher" spellcasters.

So my personal class fantasy for spellcasters can fall into four categories.

1. Battlefield control (controlling what enemies can do and positioning allies to do more of what they do).
2. Artillery (Boom.)
3. Minion summoning (Night of the living dead/Fate series).
4. Support magic (Removing conditions that keep allies from doing what they do, making allies better at what they do).

Adding a "Skirmisher" archetype to that seems...Unneeded at best. Control already CC enemies, and it's a fine class fantasy.

I think there is room for two "skirmishers", in the rules.

A. A primarily-melee skirmisher who is less survivable but more reactive in combat than a "frontline" character, and which acts as an assassin.

B. A primarily-ranged skirmisher who interacts heavily with (and is thwarted by) vision, cover, and stealth, and which has the ability to hinder and confuse enemies while attacking them.

For the first, strong reactions that allow the character to counter enemy actions or exploit weaknesses in their actions are a must. For the second, abilities that add conditions on attacks are a must. It's possible to do the first but it requires specific builds, and most of the support for the second is half-baked-either too few uses, or uses a resource better used just killing the foe.

[Sorinth]

I'd rather not go back to the days of min-maxing spell schools, please.



So my personal class fantasy for spellcasters can fall into four categories.

1. Battlefield control (controlling what enemies can do and positioning allies to do more of what they do).
2. Artillery (Boom.)
3. Minion summoning (Night of the living dead/Fate series).
4. Support magic (Removing conditions that keep allies from doing what they do, making allies better at what they do).

Adding a "Skirmisher" archetype to that seems...Unneeded at best. Control already CC enemies, and it's a fine class fantasy.

I think there is room for two "skirmishers", in the rules.

A. A primarily-melee skirmisher who is less survivable but more reactive in combat than a "frontline" character, and which acts as an assassin.

B. A primarily-ranged skirmisher who interacts heavily with (and is thwarted by) vision, cover, and stealth, and which has the ability to hinder and confuse enemies while attacking them.

For the first, strong reactions that allow the character to counter enemy actions or exploit weaknesses in their actions are a must. For the second, abilities that add conditions on attacks are a must. It's possible to do the first but it requires specific builds, and most of the support for the second is half-baked-either too few uses, or uses a resource better used just killing the foe.

How are you proposing to actually implement those 4 spellcaster categories if not by doing something with the spell schools?

Similarly for skirmisher it seems melee or ranged how are you hindering/confusing the enemies? If it's via imposing debuffs then we probably are on the same page.

[Dienekes]

For sure there needs to be a level of balance with casters. Presumably it would be more at-will then casting spells and would being doing damage in addition to the debuff whereas many spells only provide the debuff.

In terms of greater reward for being in melee, I think that's bigger then the skirmish role. Fix it across the board don't just fix it for skirmish class/subclasses. I think a big mistake in that regards was how they handled Archery FS and Sharpshooter, if Cover actually mattered then there would already be an inherent greater reward. I'd even boost cover and have the Dex save bonus be for all saving throws. Then there's also apply the rules, how often do we DMs give out partial cover when there's a fireball because frankly it probably should apply much more often. If we had a situation where in combat say 2/3rds of ranged and spells were impacted by the +2 partial cover bonus that would be a big balancing factor. The problem is you want a system that is quick and simple, I'm as guilty as the next one in mostly ignoring the cover rules especially with regards to AoE spells.

A part of the issue is, frontliner or tank or however you want to describe them, still serve their purpose by being in melee in a way that Skirmisher doesn’t when compared to casters and ranged strikers. Now, I do agree that by later levels the frontliner doesn’t get adequate tools for the job. But at lower to mid levels, the process of taking up space, opportunity attacks and getting in the opponents face does the important task of keeping the enemy away from the squishies. And having the biggest hit dice, best armor, ability to self heal or grant themselves damage resistance all allow it to perform their role better than I think most other classes. With maybe the exception of Moon Druid from levels 1 to 3. But Moon Druid’s just poorly designed.

I don’t think that’s true for Skirmishers. Their job, either as melee striker or melee soft control, is just performed better by other classes and nothing about the playstyle makes up for that fact. So they have to be very good at it.

[Sorinth]

I don’t think that’s true for Skirmishers. Their job, either as melee striker or melee soft control, is just performed better by other classes and nothing about the playstyle makes up for that fact. So they have to be very good at it.

In 5e right now yes, but this thread is about a hypothetical we redo all classes/sbuclasses where we could easily change that.

[2D8HP]

Three classes:

Clerics: Divine magic channelers aligned either with Law or with Chaos

Fighters: basically current Champion Fighters with bits of Rogue mixed in, subclasses could include badass archers, badass swordsmen, and a slightly less badass Fighter that’s a fair archer and a fair swordsman

Magicians: spell casters, should have a subclass that’s as cognitively undemanding as the current Champion Fighter

[Sorinth]

Three classes:

Clerics: Divine magic channelers aligned either with Law or with Chaos

Fighters: basically current Champion Fighters with bits of Rogue mixed in, subclasses could include badass archers, badass swordsmen, and a slightly less badass Fighter that’s a fair archer and a fair swordsman

Magicians: spell casters, should have a subclass that’s as cognitively undemanding as the current Champion Fighter

At that point I wonder why even have a distinction between clerics and mages. Why not just have to 2 classes Fighter & Mage and have something like a Life Mage as the "cleric".

[2D8HP]

At that point I wonder why even have a distinction between clerics and mages. Why not just have to 2 classes Fighter & Mage and have something like a Life Mage as the "cleric".


Tradition!

[Wildstag]

Because the Priest and the Mage have two different focuses. The Mage focuses on specific fields within magic (Schools), whereas the Priest focuses instead on magic their deity provides (Domains).

This works both in fluffy ways and in mechanical ways.

I guess you could work it so that different domains are basically just different schools by another name, but it'd be wonky I think.

[Dienekes]

In 5e right now yes, but this thread is about a hypothetical we redo all classes/sbuclasses where we could easily change that.

Very true, but I don't think in this hypothetical redo they would be changed or the problem realized until they are pointed out.


Because the Priest and the Mage have two different focuses. The Mage focuses on specific fields within magic (Schools), whereas the Priest focuses instead on magic their deity provides (Domains).

This works both in fluffy ways and in mechanical ways.

I guess you could work it so that different domains are basically just different schools by another name, but it'd be wonky I think.

I mean, that argument can be made for a lot of the classes that 2D8HP has excised anyway.

For example:

What's have a Barbarian and a Fighter?

Because the Barbarian and the Fighter have two different focuses. The Barbarian focuses on simply getting angry and dealing large , whereas the Fighter focuses instead on the training to make their equipment most efficient for their use.

This works both in fluffy ways and in mechanical ways.

I guess you could work it so that the Barbarian's Rage was just a subclass by another name, but it'd be wonky I think.

[Psyren]

Magicians: spell casters, should have a subclass that’s as cognitively undemanding as the current Champion Fighter

The only way to do that would be to have it not use spellcasting at all :smallconfused: Like as soon as you include spells, that's a whole new chapter of the book the player has to know the base rules for and Champion is out the window.


At that point I wonder why even have a distinction between clerics and mages. Why not just have to 2 classes Fighter & Mage and have something like a Life Mage as the "cleric".

Dragon Age does this, where "Mage" is one class and you can build for healing and control and blasting etc. It can be a bit annoying though as many spells have very defined chains you have to follow to learn the spells you actually want, which eats up your spells known.

[Dienekes]

The only way to do that would be to have it not use spellcasting at all :smallconfused: Like as soon as you include spells, that's a whole new chapter of the book the player has to know the base rules for and Champion is out the window.

For the record, this is exactly why I advocate remaking the Sorcerer as a completely spell-less "simple mage." it creates a space for those who want to play a caster without worrying about spell slots, and pouring through hundreds of spells.

But making such a class would be directly opposite 2D8HP's desire to cut the number of classes down to the bare minimum.



Dragon Age does this, where "Mage" is one class and you can build for healing and control and blasting etc. It can be a bit annoying though as many spells have very defined chains you have to follow to learn the spells you actually want, which eats up your spells known.

I haven't played the DA TTRPG. But when compared to D&D's wizard's selecting all the best spells at every level with no limitations mechanical or thematic, it sounds like a feature not a bug.

[Sorinth]

The only way to do that would be to have it not use spellcasting at all :smallconfused: Like as soon as you include spells, that's a whole new chapter of the book the player has to know the base rules for and Champion is out the window.

It would for sure require a break from typical D&D spellcasting but you could do something where you build on "1" cantrip similar to how the invocations build on EB.

So a simple firemage might look something like, they have the Firebolt cantrip and add spellcasting mod to damage. As they gain levels they get access to features that add on to Firebolt, one feature might add a burning condition so that on subsequent turns the enemy takes fire damage until they put out the fire, another feature might add a blast radius so every creature within Xft makes a Dex save or take additional fire damage, another might allow splitting Firebolt into multiple, you could even copy Champion directly and increase crit range, etc...

You'd be a mage casting spells every round, but you'd follow the Champion template of simply making your "attack" every round.

[Gurgeh]

It would for sure require a break from typical D&D spellcasting but you could do something where you build on "1" cantrip similar to how the invocations build on EB.

So a simple firemage might look something like, they have the Firebolt cantrip and add spellcasting mod to damage. As they gain levels they get access to features that add on to Firebolt, one feature might add a burning condition so that on subsequent turns the enemy takes fire damage until they put out the fire, another feature might add a blast radius so every creature within Xft makes a Dex save or take additional fire damage, another might allow splitting Firebolt into multiple, you could even copy Champion directly and increase crit range, etc...

You'd be a mage casting spells every round, but you'd follow the Champion template of simply making your "attack" every round.
I, too, liked the 3.5 warlock. ;)

[rickayelm]

There is a third party class on the 5e srd called Complete Warmage that does this. They get bonus dice to cantrip and warmage tricks, along with an arcane fighting style. It is a product by Mage Hand Press.