The only way I might play 5e... (not being mean btw)

[gooddragon1]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

[JNAProductions]

Is if I could play a catfolk ninja. With above average charisma.

Now, they've got the cat part down officially: https://roleplayersrespite.com/dnd-5e-tabaxi#:~:text=Tabaxi%20is%20a%20playable%20race,T hey're%20catfolk.

But there's no official ninja base class that I know of.

With this, I could play a catfolk ninja in Ravnica.

Rogue or Monk would work well for that.

Shadow Monk especially.

[gooddragon1]

Rogue or Monk would work well for that.

Shadow Monk especially.

No, it has to actually be a ninja. Not fluffed (heh) as a ninja. Actually a ninja base class. There's one on dnd wiki... but I don't know about balance there.

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ninja_(5e_Class)

Also, I want critical role people to make a player character tibaxi ninja (using that link if necessary), but that's wishful thinking.

[Psyren]

Arcane Trickster, Soulknife, or a multiclass of some kind would make decent Ninja if it's the magical aspect you're looking for.

If all you care about is being sneaky/stabby and wearing a mask any rogue can do that.

[JNAProductions]

No, it has to actually be a ninja. Not fluffed (heh) as a ninja. Actually a ninja base class. There's one on dnd wiki... but I don't know about balance there.

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ninja_(5e_Class)

What do you see a ninja doing? Like, what is it you’re looking for in that class?

[gooddragon1]

Arcane Trickster, Soulknife, or a multiclass of some kind would make decent Ninja if it's the magical aspect you're looking for.

If all you care about is being sneaky/stabby and wearing a mask any rogue can do that.

It's as much about the mechanics as it is about the prestige of literally having a class named ninja. While being a cat. And having a positive charisma modifier. And the fact that cats tend to age very gracefully in appearance.

One of the advantages of 5e, I assume, is that there is no such thing as sneak attack type stuff being ineffective against certain enemies.

[Unoriginal]

No, it has to actually be a ninja. Not fluffed (heh) as a ninja. Actually a ninja base class.


It's as much about the mechanics as it is about the prestige of literally having a class named ninja.


So you made a thread to tell us about how you're never going to play 5e?

[gooddragon1]

So you made a thread to tell us about how you're never going to play 5e?

No, I am hopeful. Also, I saw this video of a very stealthy cat: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qhDrFn4bNjg

Did you know that there are no cat ninjas in magic the gathering? How is that even possible? Well technically mistform ultimus, but still.

[Unoriginal]

No, I am hopeful. Also, I saw this video of a very stealthy cat

By your own words, you don't want a very stealthy cat, you want a cat who has Ninja as their base class. This is never going to happen.




Did you know that there are no cat ninjas in magic the gathering? How is that even possible?

There are no cat pirates in M:tG, either.

[gooddragon1]

By your own words, you don't want a very stealthy cat, you want a cat who has Ninja as their base class. This is never going to happen.




There are no cat pirates in M:tG, either.

Firstly, if I had input in the design process, it would be sneaky, use some arcane magic, and have sneak attack. But it would be a base class called ninja. Please don't crush my hopes and dreams.

Secondly, why would a cat ever want to be a pirate? There tends to be water involved and pirates aren't known for cleanliness.

Thirdly, did you see the cat video? Did you see the level of stealth involved?

The thing is, if you're playing a catfolk ninja, you can't really lose the game. You're already playing a catfolk ninja, everything after that is a bonus.

Edit:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cat_proximity.png
From Xkcd

I might need to talk to Bhu about this problem.

[LudicSavant]

Is if I could play a catfolk ninja. With above average charisma.

Now, they've got the cat part down officially: https://roleplayersrespite.com/dnd-5e-tabaxi#:~:text=Tabaxi%20is%20a%20playable%20race,T hey're%20catfolk.

But there's no official ninja base class that I know of.

With this, I could play a catfolk ninja in Ravnica.

Rogues and Shadow Monks are totally ninjas.

Like, people on this forum say "Shadow Monk'd" instead of "Ninja'd."


Firstly, if I had input in the design process, it would be sneaky, use some arcane magic, and have sneak attack. That class already exists. It's called Arcane Trickster.

[gooddragon1]

Rogues and Shadow Monks are totally ninjas.

Like, people on this forum say "Shadow Monk'd" instead of "Ninja'd."

That class already exists. It's called Arcane Trickster.

Then another one with ninja specialized spells named ninja needs to be made.

Like a spell that makes a smoke bomb by conjuration of condensed mundane smoke in a magical sphere.

[TaiLiu]

I understand this. Cats are my favorite animal, too. While the odds for a base Ninja class are against you, I echo other posters in saying that you can mimic a ninja pretty well with other classes and subclasses.

Aside from Monk (Shadow) and Rogue (Arcane Trickster), you might also look at Sorcerer (Shadow), Barbarian (Beast), and possibly Bard (Whispers) or Druid (Moon). Rogue is probably the best opinion, since you can easily grab expertise in Dexterity (Stealth) and Charisma (whatever you want).

[LudicSavant]

Then another one with ninja specialized spells named ninja needs to be made.

Like a spell that makes a smoke bomb by conjuration of condensed mundane smoke in a magical sphere.

There's already a spell that does that! It's even a Conjuration spell!

You're getting way too hung up on what mechanics are named.

[gooddragon1]

I understand this. Cats are my favorite animal, too. While the odds for a base Ninja class are against you, I echo other posters in saying that you can mimic a ninja pretty well with other classes and subclasses.

Aside from Monk (Shadow) and Rogue (Arcane Trickster), you might also look at Sorcerer (Shadow), Barbarian (Beast), and possibly Bard (Whispers) or Druid (Moon). Rogue is probably the best opinion, since you can easily grab expertise in Dexterity (Stealth) and Charisma (whatever you want).

I'm considering asking the homebrew boards to make a ninja base class with the desired specifications. I've brewed 3.5 material plenty, but have no experience at all with 5e. Except for one time, but I never actually played 5e even once I mean.

The prestige of officiality is very important to me.


There's already a spell that does that! It's even a Conjuration spell!

You're getting way too hung up on what mechanics are named.

That's good, add that to the spell list, but it really is important to me about the nominal prestige. Not just renaming rogue or something mind you.

I'm a stickler for it. I can't explain why, but the heart wants what the heart wants.

Also a spell that causes a shuriken to do bonus damage maybe. Or something.

[Segev]

Okay, let's create a base class called "ninja" that gets rage, specializes in ranged attacks with firearms, and wears heavy armor!

[gooddragon1]

Okay, let's create a base class called "ninja" that gets rage, specializes in ranged attacks with firearms, and wears heavy armor!

:(

You make me sad.

[TaiLiu]

I'm a stickler for it. I can't explain why, but the heart wants what the heart wants.
Of course! Best of luck! Maybe you can bribe someone at WOTC. :smallwink:


:(

You make me sad.
gooddragon1, this might not be your intent. But this is a very silly thread and it makes me smile. :smallbiggrin:

[Leon]

Good luck with that

[kingcheesepants]

I'm considering asking the homebrew boards to make a ninja base class with the desired specifications. I've brewed 3.5 material plenty, but have no experience at all with 5e. Except for one time, but I never actually played 5e even once I mean.

The prestige of officiality is very important to me.



That's good, add that to the spell list, but it really is important to me about the nominal prestige. Not just renaming rogue or something mind you.

I'm a stickler for it. I can't explain why, but the heart wants what the heart wants.

Also a spell that causes a shuriken to do bonus damage maybe. Or something.

So you're okay with homebrew? If so I can easily homebrew you a class that's just what you're looking for

Take the rouge and change the name to Ninja and the various other features to match (thieves cant becomes ninja secret language etc), change the saves to Dex and Cha rather than Int. Give them simple weapons and martial weapons without the heavy property. Otherwise everything remains the same.
Then take arcane trickster and replace Int with Cha and wizard with sorcerer (note that this is almost a straight nerf because sorcerers have a worse spell list, but it gives the charisma boost that you wanted). Otherwise it's the same.
Voila there are enough differences to warrant giving it its own name but it's otherwise so close to the standard arcane trickster that there isn't a DM who would disallow it.

[Scots Dragon]

No, it has to actually be a ninja. Not fluffed (heh) as a ninja. Actually a ninja base class.

The shadow monk is explicitly called a ninja in its description in the Player's Handbook.

[Pooky the Imp]

Am I the only one who keeps thinking of this:

https://i.giantitp.com//comics/oots/oots0209.gif


More seriously, there's another way to look at this - a ninja probably shouldn't be telling people that they're a ninja. It rather spoils the whole 'secrecy' thing.

It would be like attending a fancy dinner at the king's palace and politely introducing yourself to everyone as a spy or assassin. :smalltongue:

[LudicSavant]

The shadow monk is explicitly called a ninja in its description in the Player's Handbook.

Yeah.

"Way of Shadow: Monks of the Way of Shadow follow a tradition that values stealth and subterfuge. These monks might be called ninjas or shadowdancers, and they serve as spies and assassins. Sometimes, the members of a ninja monastery are family members, forming a clan sworn to secrecy about their arts and missions."

Like seriously, there is already a ninja class in the game.

[Corran]

Okay, let's create a base class called "ninja" that gets rage, specializes in ranged attacks with firearms, and wears heavy armor!
I like the originality of your take. What can you do for the pirate, the soldier and the crocodile hunter?





That's good, add that to the spell list, but it really is important to me about the nominal prestige. Not just renaming rogue or something mind you.

I'm a stickler for it. I can't explain why, but the heart wants what the heart wants.

Also a spell that causes a shuriken to do bonus damage maybe. Or something.
Samurais paid more and there was only room for one of them. Seriously though, the archtype(?) is recognized by the edition in that you have ways to realize it, as many have mentioned so far. Not getting the name tag can be hurtful, I kind of unserstand (I think), but consider this. What if the class/subclass ninja did exist but it was not designed to your taste? Not saying that it would be bad, just not the exact thing that you had in mind. What if it was a spell-less ninja while you thought that dnd ninja should definitely have spells? Or they would give them spells and you might find it rediculous since real world ninjas obviously didn't have spells. There's never going to be a single take that will satisfy everyone and to the same degree. So, not having the name may hurt emotionally, but having the name on top of something that would not satisfy you may hurt even more.

5e does not offer the same level of customization like 3.5 did, but it's not completely lacking either. I'd guess that's the main issue here.

[Unoriginal]

I'm considering asking the homebrew boards to make a ninja base class with the desired specifications. I've brewed 3.5 material plenty, but have no experience at all with 5e. Except for one time, but I never actually played 5e even once I mean.

The prestige of officiality is very important to me.



That's good, add that to the spell list, but it really is important to me about the nominal prestige. Not just renaming rogue or something mind you.

I'm a stickler for it. I can't explain why, but the heart wants what the heart wants.

Also a spell that causes a shuriken to do bonus damage maybe. Or something.

There has been exactly ONE base class added to the game since its launch nearly 10 years ago.

There will never be a Ninja base class in 5e. Maybe in RPGs that uses the 5e system as a basis, but not D&D 5e.

[Keltest]

There has been exactly ONE base class added to the game since its launch nearly 10 years ago.

There will never be a Ninja base class in 5e. Maybe in RPGs that uses the 5e system as a basis, but not D&D 5e.

Beyond this, ninja kits already exist in the base game. Rogues exist. Monks exist. There's no reason to add a new base class that does exactly the same thing these classes already do, just for the sake of having the name "ninja" attached to them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rogues and Shadow Monks are totally ninjas.
That class already exists. It's called Arcane Trickster. +1.

Am I the only one who keeps thinking of this:
https://i.giantitp.com//comics/oots/oots0209.gif No, not the only one. :smallsmile:
More seriously, there's another way to look at this - a ninja probably shouldn't be telling people that they're a ninja. It rather spoils the whole 'secrecy' thing. When I was in high school, before Hollywood glommed onto ninjutsu and ninjas, I read a book call The Art of Invisibility (it was about Ninjas, and ninjutsu; I was in a Tae Kwon Do martial arts class/hobby at the time, mid 70's). The "nobody knows you're a ninja" is a huge part of it.

It would be like attending a fancy dinner at the king's palace and politely introducing yourself to everyone as a spy or assassin. :smalltongue: Funnily enough, a conversation like that happened in Assassin's Apprentice (Robin Hobb).

For the OP.

Before you post, sometimes reading the PHB helps. (And any of us can make the boo boo of not doing so; I have myself on at least one occasion, probably more).
My suggestion to you if you join a D&D 5e game and like the ninja archetype:
Tabaxi Monk, Way of the Shadows (you choose that archetype/subclass at level 3) fits what you want - a ninja - pretty well. I suggest the Criminal background, or any background that provides proficiency with thieves tools.
Note: Tabaxi are in Volo's Guide to Monsters, not the PHB.

Something to consider: when you use a monk weapon, it's damage increases as you increase in level. A dagger does 1d4 until level 5 where it does 1d6 and at level 11 it does 1d8, and at level 17 it does 1d10. (So do your unarmed strikes). That's a monk-unique benefit.

The only similar thing off the top of my head is the druid cantrip shillelagh raising a club's damage from 1d4 to 1d8 magical for a minute. (There may be others, but they are rare).

Or, to be a D&D ninja, try out Arcane Trickster if you would like a bit of spell casting (which comes on line at level 3) which is a rogue archetype.

ETA: agree with what Unoriginal and Keltest said just before I chimed in.

[gooddragon1]

... but consider this. What if the class/subclass ninja did exist but it was not designed to your taste?

That's a good point.

[Psyren]

The shadow monk is explicitly called a ninja in its description in the Player's Handbook.


Yeah.

"Way of Shadow: Monks of the Way of Shadow follow a tradition that values stealth and subterfuge. These monks might be called ninjas or shadowdancers, and they serve as spies and assassins. Sometimes, the members of a ninja monastery are family members, forming a clan sworn to secrecy about their arts and missions."

Like seriously, there is already a ninja class in the game.

Any reply to this OP?

[gooddragon1]

Any reply to this OP?

The title of the class is shadow monk. A monk is not a ninja. See exhibit: Naruto.

I'm half joking on the Naruto part.

[rlc]

There isn’t going to be a ninja base class. That isn’t how 5e works.
There might be an archetype called “ninja” one day, but that’s really already covered by the ones that have already been talked about.

[Dienekes]

The title of the class is shadow monk. A monk is not a ninja. See exhibit: Naruto.

I'm half joking on the Naruto part.

I don’t think you really get how 5e works. The class titles are mostly just there to give an idea of what tropes they’re playing into. There’s no Knight Class, but I can make a knight 4 different ways.

This is the same with Ninja. I can make a ninja, honestly, I can make a ninja easier than I can make a good knight. But it will be an Assassin Rogue if you’re going by what a ninja actually did in real life. An Arcane trickster if you think it should have weird magic tricks. Or a shadow monk if you want it to be one of those anime things people call ninjas.

If you’re waiting for a class with the name, you’ll probably never play the game.

[Psyren]

A monk is not a ninja.

Even when the book tells you it is?

[KorvinStarmast]

Hmm, maybe my memory is playing tricks on me again.

Ninja: The Invisible Assassins
might be the book I am remembering. Not sure when Draeger's book was first published (he died in 1982) and I do recall reading his book The Art of Invisibility, but maybe that was when I was at sea in the 1980's.
Anyway, the similarities between ninja and monk; way of the shadows, suffices to make it very playable.

The title of the class is shadow monk. A monk is not a ninja.
{insert suitable face palm meme picture here}
Pretty sure this is not a hill not worth dying on. You've been offered substantial expert advice on this.
Suggestion: try it, you might surprise yourself and have fun.
Or, don't. Up to you.
In any case, have fun.

[ender241]

https://i.imgur.com/WpVhfFG_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

[Boci]

No, it has to actually be a ninja. Not fluffed (heh) as a ninja. Actually a ninja base class. There's one on dnd wiki... but I don't know about balance there.

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ninja_(5e_Class)

Ooo, I like ninjas. Let's have a look -

"Instant Death
When you reach the 20th level, you learn the deadliest of techniques. During combat, when you roll 20 you may use this feature as an action to kill a creature in one strike. When you activate this feature, you must succeed a DC=15 Dexterity check. On a successful check, you instantly cut down any creature you target with this feature. On a failure, your attack counts as a normal critical hit. You may use this feature once and regain the ability to do so after finishing a long rest."

Yeah, I'm going to go with "no" on the "is it balanced" issue.

But yeah, shouldn't be terrible hard to find a group that's willing to homebrew a ninja class for you. Dunno why people are snarkily patting themselves on the back for pointing out you probably won't get an official ninja class when you indicated homebrew was fine.

[ender241]

Dunno why people are snarkily patting themselves on the back for pointing out you probably won't get an official ninja class when you indicated homebrew was fine.

Because there literally is a ninja class. Why is Tabaxi acceptable as the option for playing a cat when they aren't called "cats" but Shadow Monk isn't acceptable because they aren't called "Ninjas"? In the Tabaxi description it basically comes out and says "these are cat people". Just like how in the description of Shadow Monk it says "these are ninjas". I don't see the difference.

[LudicSavant]

Because there literally is a ninja class.

Yeah. Way of Shadow Monks are repeatedly referred to in-game as ninjas. They just... are the ninja class.


Why is Tabaxi acceptable as the option for playing a cat when they aren't called "cats" but Shadow Monk isn't acceptable because they aren't called "Ninjas"? In the Tabaxi description it basically comes out and says "these are cat people". Just like how in the description of Shadow Monk it says "these are ninjas". I don't see the difference.

Exactly this.

[HPisBS]

Firstly, if I had input in the design process, it would be sneaky, use some arcane magic, and have sneak attack. But it would be a base class called ninja. Please don't crush my hopes and dreams.

Secondly, why would a cat ever want to be a pirate? There tends to be water involved and pirates aren't known for cleanliness.

Thirdly, did you see the cat video? Did you see the level of stealth involved?

The thing is, if you're playing a catfolk ninja, you can't really lose the game. You're already playing a catfolk ninja, everything after that is a bonus.

Edit:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cat_proximity.png
From Xkcd

I might need to talk to Bhu about this problem.

Ok, I recognize that you're just being silly with this whole thread, but I thought I'd go ahead and highlight my True Ninja build (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24560731&postcount=32) for you anyway.

Here's the bottom line:

Whenever successfully ambushing enemies, prep a Hunter's Mark, then auto-crit for a total of
2x(6d8+8d6) + 31 ≈ 141 damage.
((3d8 weapons + 1d8 force from GS + 3d6 sneak attack + 2d8 unarmed + 5d6 HM) x 2 crits + 25 Dex + 6 Duelist)

Summary:
It's almost unfair how good this ninja is at ambushes.

+15 Initiative if Alert
+17 Stealth
Pass W/out Trace for +27 Stealth to guarantee successfully sneaking past any perceptive enemies
└– Also +10 Stealth for any allies that might tag along
Shadow Step and vertical / liquid running (50 ft speed) to help get in position where the targets would least expect an attacker to hide
Slow Fall for safe and reliable attacks from above
At-will invisibility when in dim light (or darkness) (Shadow lvl 6
Always invisible when in darkness - even to creatures with darkvision (Gloom Stalker lvl 3
+17 Perception and Survival to track down targets (with advantage if already Hunter's Marked)
Silence to ensure nobody comes to investigate any screams of bloody murder


And once a target is ambushed, it will go down hard and fast. A pure Assassin's ambush could match this burst damage. However, this is much better at setting that up than a pure Rogue is, and it has the advantage of not relying on a single failed Con save for half of the damage. And all of any pure Rogue's damage is dependent on a single attack roll (two with TWF or CBE). This ninja is definitely the more reliable one.

How it plays out:

Before round 1: We track, hide from, then Hunter's Mark our target. (Using Shadow Arts as necessary.)
Round 1: We make 5 attacks with advantage for ~ 141 damage to our surprised target, and spend up to 5 ki points to stun it. Or ~ 156 ~ 148.5 with our basic poison.
Round 2: We make another 4 attacks with advantage against our stunned target for ~ 66.5 damage. Then, we'll probably very bravely run away with our 50 ft speed before our dead target's allies get a chance to take any swings at us.
Round 3: If necessary, we may take a moment to add some extra failed death saves to our target before escaping with bonus action disengage, dash, hide, Shadow Step, whatever.
If a Round 4 even matters, then we turn invisible and continue on our stealthy, shadow stepping way.


This works with or without allies. In fact, we'd probably stealth ahead of any allies we have to sneakily dispatch the toughest enemy before leading that target's comrades back to our own allies, who we left lying in wait to spring their own ambush.

A dark robed figure makes a devastating series of attacks against your party's only healer. Your friend falls far faster than anyone who's so experienced ever should - even before you or anyone else can even react. Then, the dark figure turns and runs. You and your remaining allies give chase, but the killer is fast. You put your all into running after him, but you lose sight of him behind a tree. Before you can even make it to that tree, he reappears elsewhere and fires a pair of arrows at you, then turns and runs behind a different tree. You run towards it, but more arrows fly at you from yet another direction.

Again and again this happens, taking you and your comrades ever deeper into the forest. Finally, you all seem to catch up to the evasive killer. Suddenly, though, arrows fly at you from multiple directions at once, while a swordsman bursts through the foliage at you. Horrified, you realize you've run right into a[/I] second ambush.


- - This is the True Ninja.

Bonus damage options:
- Spore Druid 2 is a cheap and effective way to add an extra +1d6 necrotic damage to all attacks, since Wild Shape doesn't cost concentration. So, a more optimized ninja would be Assassin Rogue 3, Shadow Monk 12, Gloom Stalker Ranger 3, Spore Druid 2 (sacrificing the final ASI / feat) to get an extra +35 damage on round 1. That bumps it up to ~176 assassinate damage.

Plus, Spore's Symbiotic Entity costs 1 action, and HM costs 1 bonus action, so there's still only 1 setup round. Plus, it expands non-assassination options by adding Faerie Fire, Entangle, and Thorn Whip to the spell list.

- Or Battle Master 3 for an extra +1d8 on up to four attacks per rest. That'd add +36 on round 1 with arguably more thematic features (including 10 ft blindsight via a second Fighting Style). Expected total: 177 assassinate damage. But that'd cost another ASI, so I'd prefer Spore Druid.

[Boci]

Because there literally is a ninja class. Why is Tabaxi acceptable as the option for playing a cat when they aren't called "cats" but Shadow Monk isn't acceptable because they aren't called "Ninjas"? In the Tabaxi description it basically comes out and says "these are cat people". Just like how in the description of Shadow Monk it says "these are ninjas". I don't see the difference.

Because D&D 5th ed isn't the only RPG on the market, and so its at relatively little opportunity cost that people can apply whatever requirements they want before they play the game, and if that entails requiring a homebrew class with a specific name, then so be it.

I agree, its a weird requirement, but I've been in this hobby for years, this is far from the first strange requirement or preference I've encountered. And generally, trying to out logic someone's preference is bad form, no matter how alien you find it.

As for why tabaxi is acceptable but only ninja will do, well you'd need to ask the OP, but to speculate, their may, quite reasonable, be a difference between a race and a class in their mind, and also cats don't have opposable thumbs, so they might be willing to play a cat-inspired race where the strict name is less improtant.

[paladinn]

This is kind of silly. Yet I've seen people bemoan the fact that 5e doesn't have an anti-paladin class (oathbreaker, anyone?), an avenger class (vengeance oath?), a warlord class (battlemaster?), swordmage (eldritch knight?), etc. Granted, not Every Single Feature from the original older-edition classes is present, but most can be replicated.

I believe the two main reasons for the plethora of subclasses is to try to accommodate all those legacy classes, or at least the concept, and to greatly limit or eliminate the need for multiclassing.

If you haven't found something suitable, just wait for it. Personally I haven't seen a real "witch" option; but it wouldn't take much to come up with a "Circle of the Crone" or some such for the druid class (which should be the basis of the witch concept anyway, IMO).

[JNAProductions]

This is kind of silly. Yet I've seen people bemoan the fact that 5e doesn't have an anti-paladin class (oathbreaker, anyone?), an avenger class (vengeance oath?), a warlord class (battlemaster?), swordmage (eldritch knight?), etc. Granted, not Every Single Feature from the original older-edition classes is present, but most can be replicated.

I believe the two main reasons for the plethora of subclasses is to try to accommodate all those legacy classes, or at least the concept, and to greatly limit or eliminate the need for multiclassing.

If you haven't found something suitable, just wait for it. Personally I haven't seen a real "witch" option; but it wouldn't take much to come up with a "Circle of the Crone" or some such for the druid class (which should be the basis of the witch concept anyway, IMO).

The bolded one I don't think works well.

Battlemaster has a bit of support options, but it ain't a Warlord.

The rest, though, agreed.

[Boci]

The bolded one I don't think works well.

Battlemaster has a bit of support options, but it ain't a Warlord.

The rest, though, agreed.

I'd also query the swordmage part, since a big aspect of that was teleporting around the battlefield. It was waaaay more magic heavy than a fighter archetype. Blade singer would be the better fit. Or hexblade.

[Dienekes]

The bolded one I don't think works well.

Battlemaster has a bit of support options, but it ain't a Warlord.

The rest, though, agreed.

That is, I think, part of the issue. There are some who want something in the game that currently isn't or if it is, the class doing it is doing a terrible job at it. Battlemaster is a horrible Warlord. That someone can say one equals the other with a straight face is just odd. The reason it's a terrible warlord is because the mechanics do a terrible job replicating the warlord.

If the Battlemaster could replicate the Warlord really well I don't think as many people would be calling for it.

Then there are things which do create a reasonable version of the desired state, just with a different name. And while there are some people who don't recognize them, such as OP. I don't think it's exactly reasonable to cater to them when the option is there and the designers have stated directly that fluff is mutable.

To use paladinn directly here. There are several classes I would use for a witch, depending on what kind of witch I was trying to replicate. But I don't personally see what is missing in the game that requires the witch option. If they had a list of mechanical necessities to get the witch-y feel, then we could get to work making one.

For OP. If they had a list of mechanics to get the ninja feel, we could theoretically get to work making one. But so far, all I've seen is just the name. At which point, take any of the existing options and call it a ninja. Or, if you need to homebrew... just homebrew the name of the class/subclass into ninja.

[HPisBS]

Guys.

I know we lack all the normal nonverbal cues when it's just text, but gooddragon1 was clearly just being silly with this thread. Even if the {Scrubbed}... tone in the OP wasn't blatant enough, his later reply with a CAT VIDEO should've clued you in! lol

[Psyren]

And generally, trying to out logic someone's preference is bad form, no matter how alien you find it.

So we should never encourage people to try to see a problem from a different angle, and only operate within the premises/parameters they've set, no matter how unreasonable? Bollocks to that.

[Boci]

So we should never encourage people to try to see a problem from a different angle, and only operate within the premises/parameters they've set, no matter how unreasonable? Bollocks to that.

We're long passed that in this thread. "Have you considered a class not called ninja that would be thematically similar" is a reasonable thing to ask. It was asked, and we got the answer: no its not, it has to be a class called ninja. Serious or not on the OP's behalf, that's the end of the conversation for trying to convince them to make do with other options, as this is now firmly in "Nahuh, you're preferences are wrong" territory.

[sethdmichaels]

You're getting way too hung up on what mechanics are named.

yup. class names should mean exactly as much within the game as the players and DM want them to mean and no more. classes are for players, characters don't need to have their personalities or self-image defined by them *at all*. a "monk" in the character creation process doesn't have to be a literal monk anywhere else, a rogue doesn't have to be untrustworthy, a bard doesn't have to sing, a paladin doesn't need to be a lawful good holy warrior. if you want to homebrew a ninja class that's fine (would love to see it!) but it doesn't actually mean anything different than designing a cool ninja-flavored rogue or a secular trickery "cleric" who isn't actually a cleric in-game and only ever referring to them as a ninja. if you want your character to be a ninja, be called a ninja in-world, and think of themselves as a ninja....that's what makes it an RPG!

[gooddragon1]

We're long passed that in this thread. "Have you considered a class not called ninja that would be thematically similar" is a reasonable thing to ask. It was asked, and we got the answer: no its not, it has to be a class called ninja. Serious or not on the OP's behalf, that's the end of the conversation for trying to convince them to make do with other options, as this is now firmly in "Nahuh, you're preferences are wrong" territory.

You were correct about the catfolk being okay but being a stickler for ninja part.

Someone brought up the point that I might not like the mechanics. So the answer is: Homebrew.

I don't want to get people riled up more. And since wotc doesn't really publish base classes, well that's that.

[Psyren]

We're long passed that in this thread. "Have you considered a class not called ninja that would be thematically similar" is a reasonable thing to ask. It was asked, and we got the answer: no its not, it has to be a class called ninja. Serious or not on the OP's behalf, that's the end of the conversation for trying to convince them to make do with other options, as this is now firmly in "Nahuh, you're preferences are wrong" territory.

But the Shadow Monk IS called "ninja." That's all some of us were pointing out.

If the answer to that is "still not good enough" then fine, happy to bow out, but that answer was only provided recently.

[Greywander]

Personally I haven't seen a real "witch" option; but it wouldn't take much to come up with a "Circle of the Crone" or some such for the druid class (which should be the basis of the witch concept anyway, IMO).
By sheer coincidence, I'm working to finish up a homebrew witch class. It's kind of a warlock but without EB, and with a lot of druid spells on its list. It's primarily a support and debuff class, getting at-will casting of Bane at 1st level, and at 3rd level getting to choose from a variety of hexes they can apply as an additional effect to Bane, Hex, and Bestow Curse. I pretty much just need to finish the capstone for one of the subclasses, finish writing a few new spells, and then fill in the invocations, and it should be done (by which I mean it will likely need some balance tweaks after I get the first wave of critique).

For the OP, I'm not really sure what to tell you. There will be no official Ninja class. If a ninja did exist, it would be as a subclass to either monk or rogue, and the Shadow monk is already the ninja subclass for the monk. The mechanics that you described pretty much fit the Arcane Trickster rogue to a T. There are plenty of ways to build a ninja in 5e, depending on what it is you want them to do, and that flexibility is really nice. I'd suggest not getting hung up on the name and focus on the mechanics you want.

Writing up an entire class from scratch is a lot of work; I would know, I've done it. Writing new subclasses is much easier, so if that's amenably to you then I could take a crack at it. Would you prefer to use rogue or monk as a base? Rogue has built in Sneak Attack, while monk gets the martial arts and a bunch of mystical abilities like Slow Fall that would suit a ninja. Either would work as a base, but they'll produce quite different results.

[Boci]

You were correct about the catfolk being okay but being a stickler for ninja part.

Someone brought up the point that I might not like the mechanics. So the answer is: Homebrew.

I don't want to get people riled up more. And since wotc doesn't really publish base classes, well that's that.

Yeah, homebrew is an option, I have seen DMs or other players homebrew classes before solely for another player to use, and I take it part of the reason you have such specific requirements for playing 5e is you're not exactly itching to try it.

Does it have to be a full base class, or can it be an archetype of a monk or ninja?

I didn't actually give that homebrewed one a decent look over, the capstone was enough to convince me it probably wasn't well balanced, but as ill suited as instant death mechanics are for 5e, even for players, a DM can certainly make it work, and there could be other classes.

{Scrubbed}

[ender241]

D&D Beyond let's you create homebrew subclasses, using an existing subclass as a template. So the simple solution here is to use Arcane Trickster as the template (since that seems to match what you want mechanically) and change the name. You can even tweak other aspects if you want to, like using Cha instead of Int for spellcasting like someone else suggested (no need to even change the spell list from wizard). Boom. Done.

If you insist on it being a brand new homebrew base class, that's a whole lot more work. If someone here is willing to do it, that's certainly their choice. But posting on a public forum asking for someone to re-create something that already exists will understandably generate a bit of a negative response. Not to mention the rigidity of framing this as the only way you "might" play 5e. So someone could write up a homebrew class for you and you might not even use it? Cool, good luck with that.

[gooddragon1]

If you insist on it being a brand new homebrew base class, that's a whole lot more work. If someone here is willing to do it, that's certainly their choice. But posting on a public forum asking for someone to re-create something that already exists will understandably generate a bit of a negative response. Not to mention the rigidity of framing this as the only way you "might" play 5e. So someone could write up a homebrew class for you and you might not even use it? Cool, good luck with that.

I can see how that will be a problem.

From Boci:

Does it have to be a full base class, or can it be an archetype of a monk or ninja?

Not completely sure yet.

[Naanomi]

DnD has never had a great base ninja class named ninja: 3.5 ninja were mechanical messes that were mostly worse rogues; 2e ninja had little mechanical differentiation from other classes except for supposedly improved access to the (wonky) martial arts system and a slightly differently structured exp table

[Tawmis]

As others have stated, you're getting hung up on the most trivial things.

You're right, a Monk isn't called a Ninja.

But why not fluff the Shadow Monk as "Ninja" with your DM's permission.

You essentially play a Shadow Monk, but you're a part of a Ninja Organization.

D&D is about imagination.

Try using it. (Not to be mean btw) ;)

[Twelvetrees]

Someone brought up the point that I might not like the mechanics. So the answer is: Homebrew.

In that case, here are some options I found from the compendium in my sig.

Base class:
Ninja by Mithicalbird (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=21842202&postcount=8)

Monk subclass:
Way of the Ninja by AmbientRaven (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?493294-The-Ninja-and-the-Samurai-two-new-archetypes!-PEACH)

Rogue subclasses:
Ninja by Bannan_mantis (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?565012-Ninja-subclass-for-rogue)
Ninja by Yagyujubei (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?401529-Rogue-Archetypes-Ninja-and-swashbuckler-PEACH)

Prestige class:
Ninja by Souplex (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?507444-5e-Ninja-Prestige-Class)

[animorte]

I don't see the problem here. Don't be afraid to do a little research to find which class suits your ideal best, copy and paste it, change every word in the template from "Rogue" to "Ninja" (or whatever specific subclass), present it to your DM and just say, "I'm playing this class, Ninja."

Or, be the DM yourself and bring the class to life in the same way as an NPC that can either be Ninja-ing for good or for bad.

[arnin77]

I feel like this is the type of character one fusses and argues over, spends a ton of time on wishing they could play what they want, having people point out they can already do that numerous times... then dies in the first session.

[Kane0]

Sure I can make you a ninja cat. What level?

[gooddragon1]

Sure I can make you a ninja cat. What level?

I'm going to think about making a homebrew. One of the posters earlier mentioned correctly that I'd have issues with other stuff.

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like this is the type of character one fusses and argues over, spends a ton of time on wishing they could play what they want, having people point out they can already do that numerous times... then dies in the first session. Larfed, I did. Seen that happen.

[Segev]

:(

You make me sad.

Why? You said you cared about the name, not the mechanics! :smalltongue: :smallwink:

[Kane0]

I'm going to think about making a homebrew. One of the posters earlier mentioned correctly that I'd have issues with other stuff.

If you have never played 5e I suggest perhaps not go straight into homebrew. Exposure and experience really helps things go smoothly.

[Willowhelm]

If you have never played 5e I suggest perhaps not go straight into homebrew. Exposure and experience really helps things go smoothly.

If the homebrew is:

1) clone shadow monk
2) edit class name

I think it’ll probably work out just fine.

[Psyren]

If the homebrew is:

1) clone shadow monk
2) edit class name

I think it’ll probably work out just fine.

Or better yet Arcane Trickster

[paladinn]

When looking at the prospect of a "ninja" class, one should ask oneself: What would would a "full class" bring to the game? Is there enough unique about said class that would justify building a full class? What would the subclasses look like? The way 5e is structured, if a class can't support at least 2-3 subclasses, it probably shouldn't be a full class. That said, some of the existing subclasses seem to have been invented/bolted-on just for the purpose of justifying the main class.

Given the tendency of 5e subclasses being a back-door means of multiclassing, I think a "ninja" would be a subclass of rogue or monk; the 3e version was definitely more rogueish. Build a subclass with whatever shadow/monk features work. Having backstab and expertise would rock on a ninja. Not sure how best to adapt a shadow monk to incorporate some of the rogue stuff though.

[Kane0]

If the homebrew is:

1) clone shadow monk
2) edit class name

I think it’ll probably work out just fine.

Wont lie, i absolutely considered it but then i figured it would be a fun excersise to make a one-third cha casting class with say half progression sneak attack and some monk goodies thrown in. No need to make subclasses if its for one specific use.

[Saelethil]

Alright, well I’ve been following this thread for a couple days now and I’ve been inspired to try making a Ninja rogue subclass. Might not be exactly what OP is looking for but we can tweak it once I have a 1st draft.

[paladinn]

Wont lie, i absolutely considered it but then i figured it would be a fun excersise to make a one-third cha casting class with say half progression sneak attack and some monk goodies thrown in. No need to make subclasses if its for one specific use.

If you're starting as a shadow monk clone, you don't really need to "throw in monk goodies", true?

How would "half progression sneak attack" work? Do any existing sub/classes have that as yet?

[Kane0]

If you're starting as a shadow monk clone, you don't really need to "throw in monk goodies", true?

How would "half progression sneak attack" work? Do any existing sub/classes have that as yet?

A renamed shadow monk would have been the easy (and funny) answer, but I felt like putting together some real 'brew.

Getting Sneak attack at a slower rate than the Rogue, so +1d6 at level 2 and another die every 3 or 4 levels after that maxxing out at +5d6 compared to the Rogues +10d6. Doesn't exist officially, just like a class that has 1/3 casting progression (only seen on AT Rogue and EK Fighter), which is why I thought it would be at least a little unique.

For example:

D6 HP
Dex and Cha saves
3 Skills (Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, History, Insight, Investigation, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth)
Light armor and simple weapons + shortsword, blowgun, hand crossbow

Level 1: Expertise, [Ribbon]
Level 2: Sneak Attack +1d6, Strike and Fade
Level 3: 1st level spells, Slow Fall, Deflect Missiles
Level 4: ASI
Level 5: Extra Attack, +10' Speed
Level 6: Sneak Attack +2d6
Level 7: Evasion, 2nd level spells
Level 8: ASI
Level 9: Expertise
Level 10: Sneak Attack +3d6
Level 11: Strike and Fade improvement
Level 12: ASI
Level 13: 3rd level spells, [Ribbon]
Level 14: Sneak Attack +4d6
Level 15:
Level 16: ASI
Level 17:
Level 18: Sneak Attack +5d6
Level 19: ASI, 4th level spells
Level 20:

Strike and Fade: when you cast a Ninja spell or take the attack action you can then disengage, hide or use an object as a bonus action.
At level 11 at the start of your first turn of each combat you can make one additional action that can be the Dash or Attack (one attack only) actions or cast a Ninja spell with a casting time of one action.

Missing ribbons could be things like bonus languages, unarmored defence, darkvision, a lesser version of reliable talent, advantage on specific checks or saves (eg Actor Feat, Fey Heritage), etc.
Can't think of anything at levels 15, 17 and 20 off the top of my head, but wouldn't be too hard to if/when the character gets to that stage.

Edit: Oh and the casting would be Charisma based with no ritual casting using the Wizard or Sorcerer, or make a Ninja one of primarily illusion and divination spells with a sprinkling of others as well.
2 Cantrips at level 3 with a third at level 5 and a foruth at level 10 or so, 2 spells known at level 3 gaining another every 2 levels to a max of 10 at level 19.

[ender241]

A renamed shadow monk would have been the easy (and funny) answer, but I felt like putting together some real 'brew.

Getting Sneak attack at a slower rate than the Rogue, so +1d6 at level 2 and another die every 3 or 4 levels after that maxxing out at +5d6 compared to the Rogues +10d6. Doesn't exist officially, just like a class that has 1/3 casting progression (only seen on AT Rogue and EK Fighter), which is why I thought it would be at least a little unique.

For example:

D6 HP
Dex and Cha saves
3 Skills (Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, History, Insight, Investigation, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth)
Light armor and simple weapons + shortsword, blowgun, hand crossbow

Level 1: Expertise, [Ribbon]
Level 2: Sneak Attack +1d6, Strike and Fade
Level 3: 1st level spells, Slow Fall, Deflect Missiles
Level 4: ASI
Level 5: Extra Attack, +10' Speed
Level 6: Sneak Attack +2d6
Level 7: Evasion
Level 8: ASI
Level 9: 2nd level spells, Expertise
Level 10: Sneak Attack +3d6
Level 11: Strike and Fade improvement
Level 12: ASI
Level 13:
Level 14: Sneak Attack +4d6
Level 15: 3rd level spells, [Ribbon]
Level 16: ASI
Level 17:
Level 18: Sneak Attack +5d6
Level 19: ASI
Level 20:

Strike and Fade: when you cast a Ninja spell or take the attack action you can then disengage, hide or use an object as a bonus action.
At level 11 at the start of your first turn of each combat you can make one additional action that can be the Dash or Attack (one attack only) actions or cast a Ninja spell with a casting time of one action.

Missing ribbons could be things like bonus languages, unarmored defence, darkvision, a lesser version of reliable talent, advantage on specific checks or saves (eg Actor Feat, Fey Heritage), etc.
Can't think of anything at levels 13, 17 and 20 off the top of my head, but wouldn't be too hard to if/when the character gets to that stage.

That just sounds like a worse arcane trickster, with extra steps. In fact, you could probably make a monk / AT multiclass and get 90% of what you have listed. Which just highlights the ridiculousness of this thread.

[Boci]

That just sounds like a worse arcane trickster, with extra steps. In fact, you could probably make a monk / AT multiclass and get 90% of what you have listed. Which just highlights the ridiculousness of this thread.

Well a level 5 monk / 5 arcane trickster vs. a level 10 ninja:

Both have extra attack, 2 ASI and 3d6 sneak attack

Monk/AT has ki abilities (most notable flurry of blows and stunning strike) and uncanny Dodge. Cunning action is better than strike and fade as its unconditional, and wisdom + dex is likely better than light armour + dex, plus the Monk / AT can always choose to wear light armour if they wish

Ninja has 2nd level spell (vs. the Monk/AK's 1st) and evasion

So yeah, probably need a boost, but you know you are allowed to revise homebrew, you don't have to abandon it just because the first version isn't perfect.

[gooddragon1]

Alright, well I’ve been following this thread for a couple days now and I’ve been inspired to try making a Ninja rogue subclass. Might not be exactly what OP is looking for but we can tweak it once I have a 1st draft.

I don't want to upset people, so I think I'll have to make the homebrew myself to avoid doing that.

[Psyren]

I don't want to upset people, so I think I'll have to make the homebrew myself to avoid doing that.

As others have said, probably a better idea to play the system first and get more familiar with it before you homebrew but you do you. I certainly still have some hidden rules sneak up on me coming over from 3.PF.

[Greywander]

I don't want to upset people, so I think I'll have to make the homebrew myself to avoid doing that.
Writing homebrew for a system you've never played before is a recipe for disaster. I've been writing 5e homebrew for years, and I still have trouble getting things balanced, but I'm leaps and bounds ahead of where I was. Using homebrew the first time you play is generally not a great idea, writing your own is even worse.

Honestly, my advice is to just suck it up and play an Arcane Trickster or Shadow Monk. Or an entirely different character. Get familiar with the game first, then consider using or writing homebrew.

I can't stress this enough, but don't forget that there are other players at the table. D&D is a cooperative game, and you're all supposed to have fun together. If you refuse to play unless you're shown special treatment, we might all be better off if you don't play. But it doesn't have to be that way. Swallow your pride and just give the game a try using the default rules (or whatever houserules your DM uses). You can ask your DM respectfully if they might allow you to use homebrew, but understand that by allowing homebrew they're doing you a favor and you're not entitled to it.

Writing homebrew is fun, in fact I've almost written up an entire Slayer class from scratch just today. But it requires a very good understanding of the system in order to do it well.

[paladinn]

Writing homebrew is fun, in fact I've almost written up an entire Slayer class from scratch just today. But it requires a very good understanding of the system in order to do it well.

I'd love to see your Slayer class (or is it subclass?) Is it your rendition of the PF slayer?

Kane0 and I are homebrew collaborators from way back. We worked out at least one Ranger version that rocked. I prefer a spell-less ranger, and likely a spell-less ninja as well, for the most part. But that's just me.

Looking over the shadow monk, it really is cool, and it's hard to see where sneak attack could fit in, unless it replaces something from the core monk class. But at that point, it really does become its own class?

[Greywander]

I'd love to see your Slayer class (or is it subclass?) Is it your rendition of the PF slayer?
Nah, it's my own thing. And although I said "from scratch", a lot of it is cobbled together from various martial classes. There's quite a bit of barbarian. Surprisingly, I didn't end up including any ranger in the mix, except for a similar theme to a "favored foe" via the subclasses.

Here's a link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CuLTlDGicypXOmUUZxvKxszYcwXnS2AjaxbedcoPeIk/edit?usp=sharing

Keep in mind it's still very much a WIP.

[Petrocorus]

No, it has to actually be a ninja. Not fluffed (heh) as a ninja. Actually a ninja base class. There's one on dnd wiki... but I don't know about balance there.
I'm late to the party, but still don't get it.
Between a mechanically fitting and even fluffly fitting class not named "ninja" and the same class but actually named "ninja", is thure really such a big difference?


Am I the only one who keeps thinking of this:
Not at all, immediately though of this.
Pretty sure this kind of argument is going to happen with one of my players.


There has been exactly ONE base class added to the game since its launch nearly 10 years ago.

They didn't even made a psionic class finally.


I don’t think you really get how 5e works. The class titles are mostly just there to give an idea of what tropes they’re playing into. There’s no Knight Class, but I can make a knight 4 different ways.

Only 4?
Or you're counting only base classes?

[LudicSavant]

Am I the only one who keeps thinking of this:

https://i.giantitp.com//comics/oots/oots0209.gif




I nearly linked that comic myself.

[Saelethil]

I just posted my brew over in the Homebrew section. It's half-baked and probably over tuned but input is welcome.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?643575-Ninja-Rogue-subclass-(Peach)&p=25391682#post25391682

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Zamn! The "Just Reflavor It, Bro" lobby was in full force on this thread. I think people vastly underestimate how much the presentation/focus of a class can impact someone's perception of it.


I don't want to upset people, so I think I'll have to make the homebrew myself to avoid doing that.

Good luck! I share some of your ideas on the "ninja archetype", so I hope you make something that's fun. I don't think you need tons of playtime to make decent homebrew, but of course power levels can vary and having experience with the game at least gives you a general barometer of what is too weak/too strong (though this can be supplanted by research). Since you seem to know what you want, I'd simply suggest looking at other classes for a baseline of power/ability progression. There really aren't any hard and fast rules (WotC has a history of giving very few of those), so using another class as an outline makes it a lot easier, simpler, and gives you a place to check your work.

The one thing that might be difficult to create a parallel for is subclass, as IDK if you would even want to create proper subclasses for your homebrew. But regardless, it's still a feature like any other.

[Skrum]

Zamn! The "Just Reflavor It, Bro" lobby was in full force on this thread. I think people vastly underestimate how much the presentation/focus of a class can impact someone's perception of it.




If the OP is coming from 3rd, I can understand that slightly - with the amount of classes and prestige classes in 3rd, the name and fluff of class levels were much more central and intertwined with the mechanics. But 5th isn't like that. Not only are there only a fraction of classes to pick from, abilities are much more vaguely described, leaving room for the player to imagine the ability however they want. Class descriptions include references to several fantasy and character archetypes.

If they really want to recreate the wheel on this, it's their own time, have at it. But they would save themselves a lot of trouble by just using arcane trickster, assassin, shadow monk, etc.

Consider too that a clan or group wouldn't all be homogeneous. A thieves' guild shouldn't all be rogue (thief) X. An elite mercenary group shouldn't all be fighter (battle master) X. A ninja clan shouldn't all be (class levels) ninja.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

If the OP is coming from 3rd, I can understand that slightly - with the amount of classes and prestige classes in 3rd, the name and fluff of class levels were much more central and intertwined with the mechanics. But 5th isn't like that. Not only are there only a fraction of classes to pick from, abilities are much more vaguely described, leaving room for the player to imagine the ability however they want. Class descriptions include references to several fantasy and character archetypes.

If they really want to recreate the wheel on this, it's their own time, have at it. But they would save themselves a lot of trouble by just using arcane trickster, assassin, shadow monk, etc.

Consider too that a clan or group wouldn't all be homogeneous. A thieves' guild shouldn't all be rogue (thief) X. An elite mercenary group shouldn't all be fighter (battle master) X. A ninja clan shouldn't all be (class levels) ninja.

I mean, I understand the change to a more "class as archetype" paradigm in 5e rather than the more "class as job" paradigm of 3/3.5e, but I think that in accepting that, a lot of players are much too eager to defend this status quo and die on the hill of reflavors/complex multiclasses/intentional gimping of features rather than concede that some character fantasies can't be fulfilled in a satisfying way by what is in the books. This is exacerbated by the lack of character options released by Wizards and the phobia against 'bloat' shared by much of the community after 3/3.5e.

Do you see a slot where a jedi-type character could fit? That's right, it's the square hole Warlock!

Ultimately, one of the biggest pitfalls of a class-based system is how restrictive it can be to play something in line to one's imagination/expectation. Sure, you can ignore text and substitute your own, but that flavor text is still there, and the mechanics will be linked to it in some way - there isn't a way to truly escape the original intent. You can put playing cards in your bike spokes and close your eyes and pretend you're riding a Harley, but deep down you know you're still on your 10-speed, and it's similar with reflavoring. There doesn't necessarily need to be a new class for every idea, but I think there's still room for new mechanics and its connected flavor different than what we currently have.

[LudicSavant]

Do you see a slot where a jedi-type character could fit? That's right, it's the square hole Warlock!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evthRoKoE1o

[Skrum]

I mean, I understand the change to a more "class as archetype" paradigm in 5e rather than the more "class as job" paradigm of 3/3.5e, but I think that in accepting that, a lot of players are much too eager to defend this status quo and die on the hill of reflavors/complex multiclasses/intentional gimping of features rather than concede that some character fantasies can't be fulfilled in a satisfying way by what is in the books. This is exacerbated by the lack of character options released by Wizards and the phobia against 'bloat' shared by much of the community after 3/3.5e.

Do you see a slot where a jedi-type character could fit? That's right, it's the square hole Warlock!

Ultimately, one of the biggest pitfalls of a class-based system is how restrictive it can be to play something in line to one's imagination/expectation. Sure, you can ignore text and substitute your own, but that flavor text is still there, and the mechanics will be linked to it in some way - there isn't a way to truly escape the original intent. You can put playing cards in your bike spokes and close your eyes and pretend you're riding a Harley, but deep down you know you're still on your 10-speed, and it's similar with reflavoring. There doesn't necessarily need to be a new class for every idea, but I think there's still room for new mechanics and its connected flavor different than what we currently have.

I totally agree with that - topic-relevant, monks and rogues are my pick for the two worst classes in the game. As such, making a ninja (or other character archetype of the finesse, rogue/monk type) that mechanically performs to expectations is going to be an uphill battle at best.

My personal frustration? Unarmed fighting, specifically a street-fighter type. Very difficult to make in 5th.

I do want to disagree slightly with the jedi one though - I think the real problem there is jedi as portrayed in SW are like, 15th level at least. Trying to be Obi Wan at 5th level is, yeah, not going to work. With 15, 20, 25 levels to work with, yeah, one could approximate a jedi - especially if your campaign is set up so that you're mostly facing CR 2 or less enemies.

[KorvinStarmast]

So yeah, probably need a boost, but you know you are allowed to revise homebrew, you don't have to abandon it just because the first version isn't perfect. Amen, Deacon! :smallsmile:

Writing homebrew for a system you've never played before is a recipe for disaster. My favorite part is getting advice from experienced players and home brewers and then going "I have no clue about the system, I'll do my own homebrew" ... "I don't want to upset people" .

I can't stress this enough, but don't forget that there are other players at the table. D&D is a cooperative game, and you're all supposed to have fun together. If you refuse to play unless you're shown special treatment, we might all be better off if you don't play.
You may be speaking to a brick wall, if I may borrow a metaphor badly.

I totally agree with that - topic-relevant, monks and rogues are my pick for the two worst classes in the game. Where's that Picard face palm picture when I need it?

[Skrum]

Where's that Picard face palm picture when I need it?

Worst in the game. Not unplayable. By definition, two classes must be the two worst. I think it's monk and rogue. Barbarian is close, but I put them slightly above just for their pure damage potential.

What do you think are the two worst?

[Segev]

Ultimately, one of the biggest pitfalls of a class-based system is how restrictive it can be to play something in line to one's imagination/expectation. Sure, you can ignore text and substitute your own, but that flavor text is still there, and the mechanics will be linked to it in some way - there isn't a way to truly escape the original intent. You can put playing cards in your bike spokes and close your eyes and pretend you're riding a Harley, but deep down you know you're still on your 10-speed, and it's similar with reflavoring. There doesn't necessarily need to be a new class for every idea, but I think there's still room for new mechanics and its connected flavor different than what we currently have.

There are certainly areas you can add a new class rather than shoe-horning an existing class and subclass into the role. I just don't happen to think "ninja" is one of those. The Shadow Monk is that class. I can see, maybe, arguing for a different "take" on ninja, but that still is probably either a rogue or monk subclass, if not a multiclass build between the two. Arcane Trickster and Assassin are both decent for various aspects of "ninja." But if you want a vaguely magical stealth martial artist, Shadow Monk has you covered very thoroughly, up to and including a "flash step"/"shadow walk" in the sixth level feature.

[Kane0]

My favorite part is getting advice from experienced players and home brewers and then going "I have no clue about the system, I'll do my own homebrew" ... "I don't want to upset people" .


I didnt take it personally :smalltongue:

[Ganryu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evthRoKoE1o

As an IT guy, this is giving me a stroke. Thanks, I hate it. XD

[Willowhelm]

As an IT guy, this is giving me a stroke. Thanks, I hate it. XD

This should help

https://youtu.be/ph9HGYkAiWw

Also mostly works in the 5e analogy. You can take the obvious option too.

[gooddragon1]

What I'm kind of planning on is shuriken and kunai magic being part of the spell list. Using half sneak attack progression (so 5d6) supplemented by shuriken/kunai magic to reach 10d6 (5d6 of cold or acid (non-flashy energy types, maybe even special fire (greyfire because I'd want it to be difficult to spot in more cases) for pure magical damage)). Special escape strategy magics like an alter self that would either let you slip into the crowd or turn into a small creature/solid object (metamorphosis from 3.5 psionics allowed turning into objects). Stuff like that is part of what I'm envisioning. Not just copying a spell list wholesale, part of it yes maybe, but it's own spell list.

I'd have to look at videos of gameplay and get a feel for damage values. But the thing is that I'm willing to be flexible on damage outputs, because it's in some ways the flavor I'm after. But not exclusively flavor mind you.

[Ganryu]

You do know Shadow Monks are literally ninjas, right...? It's even called that. Subclass description.

Monks of the Way of Shadow follow a tradition that values stealth and subterfuge. These monks might be called ninjas or shadowdancers, and they serve as spies and assassins. Sometimes the members of a ninja monastery are family members, forming a clan sworn to secrecy about their arts and missions. Other monasteries are more like thieves' guilds, hiring out their services to nobles, rich merchants, or anyone else who can pay their fees. Regardless of their methods, the heads of these monasteries expect the unquestioning obedience of their students.

Want to focus on shurikens? Super easy to even optimize. Shadow monk, one level fighter. Pick up thrown weapon fighting style. Use custom lineage to pick up dueling fighting style. Throw daggers. Refluff to shurikens {You are literally allowed to do this under monk weapon descriptions btw}

You have spells, like darkness, or silence, can refluff to shadow bombs and flashbangs. Or don't. You don't have to refluff a single thing there, and it is a ninja. It is called a ninja even. It does ninja stuff. It IS a ninja. Even if you don't reflavor, throwing stuff is using shurikens.

But above build does UNGODLY damage throwing stuff damage. If you ever use ki points, can throw another as a bonus action.

3d10+27 damage a round isn't bad. At all.

You can buy bombs as an item with the DMG if you want. There's pricing and everything.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

There are certainly areas you can add a new class rather than shoe-horning an existing class and subclass into the role. I just don't happen to think "ninja" is one of those. The Shadow Monk is that class.

Well, it's one interpretation, but there's only so much conceptual ground one can cover in using the monk class as a chassis - a class which is based on the "martial artist punching people" fantasy.


I can see, maybe, arguing for a different "take" on ninja, but that still is probably either a rogue or monk subclass, if not a multiclass build between the two.

I think this is too unimaginative. If you look at things like Naruto, Ninja Scroll, Basilisk, you clearly see the concept of the ninja as a supernatural warrior, a spellcaster, even. To say that one of two martials can satisfy a (quite popular) pop-culture inspired character demand is just a bit silly. I'll agree that there are aspects of monk and rogue that can fulfill the feeling of a ninja, but we'd at least need something like alternate class features to meaningfully encapsulate the "ninja" idea.



You have spells, like darkness, or silence, can refluff to shadow bombs and flashbangs. Or don't. You don't have to refluff a single thing there, and it is a ninja. It is called a ninja even. It does ninja stuff. It IS a ninja. Even if you don't reflavor, throwing stuff is using shurikens.

It's missing the Sexy Jutsu.

[Ganryu]

It's missing the Sexy Jutsu.

Damn, unusable then. Wait, can minor illusion jiggle?

[Teaguethebean]

This is kind of silly. Yet I've seen people bemoan the fact that 5e doesn't have an anti-paladin class (oathbreaker, anyone?), an avenger class (vengeance oath?), a warlord class (battlemaster?), swordmage (eldritch knight?), etc. Granted, not Every Single Feature from the original older-edition classes is present, but most can be replicated.
If you haven't found something suitable, just wait for it. Personally I haven't seen a real "witch" option; but it wouldn't take much to come up with a "Circle of the Crone" or some such for the druid class (which should be the basis of the witch concept anyway, IMO).
I agree with your general belief on the topic of use subclasses to capture old magic but battlemaster simply isn't the warlord. Order cleric is. And eldritch knight just isn't a swordmage, I made a custom class to emulate the fantasy the sword mage provides. But also I agree with which concepts being without a home. I have played a swamp druid, I have played an undead warlock. Both almost deliver but very much fall short.

[Segev]

I think this is too unimaginative. If you look at things like Naruto, Ninja Scroll, Basilisk, you clearly see the concept of the ninja as a supernatural warrior, a spellcaster, even. To say that one of two martials can satisfy a (quite popular) pop-culture inspired character demand is just a bit silly. I'll agree that there are aspects of monk and rogue that can fulfill the feeling of a ninja, but we'd at least need something like alternate class features to meaningfully encapsulate the "ninja" idea.

It seems to me that Naruto is easily handled by Arcane Trickster or straight-up Wizard, depending on which ninja you want to mimic. I can't comment on Basilisk, not having seen it, but Ninja Scroll works pretty well as either Assassin Rogue or Shadow Monk, with one of them maybe being a Swarmkeeper Ranger. More to the point, the more specific you get with your examples and the more you insist that it requires its own class because of those examples, the less a single class is going to be able to do all of the examples you point to.

"Ninja," if you go too far into anime's broad use of the term, becomes too unfocused to BE a class.

[KorvinStarmast]

Worst in the game.
Nope. You are advised to actually play one before opening your soup strainer.

What do you think are the two worst?
None of them.
And that, my friend, is where your problem lies; it is at the conceptual level.
Each party, as it is forms, either develops synergy or it doesn't.
How that works is a matter of how the players handle themselves.

I didnt take it personally :smalltongue: I am not allowed to type what I think due to forum rules. Your graciousness is part of why I subscribe to your newsletter. :smallwink:

[Segev]

Nope. You are advised to actually play one before opening your soup strainer.

None of them.
And that, my friend, is where your problem lies; it is at the conceptual level.
Each party, as it is forms, either develops synergy or it doesn't.
How that works is a matter of how the players handle themselves...

Are you suggesting that all classes are equally good, in aggregate? Because while I understand where your objection to the question comes from, you are essentially making that claim by claiming there are no classes that are "the worst."

[KorvinStarmast]

Are you suggesting that all classes are equally good, in aggregate? Because while I understand where your objection to the question comes from, you are essentially making that claim by claiming there are no classes that are "the worst." No, but you apparently just did, so don't go putting words into my mouth, if you please. :smallconfused:

you are essentially making that claim by claiming there are no classes that are "the worst." No, I am not. "essentially" is a weasel word.
You spoke that, not me. Please don't do stuff like that, it's really dishonest.

[Skrum]

Nope. You are advised to actually play one before opening your soup strainer.

None of them.
And that, my friend, is where your problem lies; it is at the conceptual level.
Each party, as it is forms, either develops synergy or it doesn't.
How that works is a matter of how the players handle themselves.

Yah I strongly disagree. What class is most able to deliver answers and/or contribute to success over the course of varied encounters and challenges, and what is that magnitude of contribution. A class being better than another is not a matter of it outperforming another in any possible contrived scenario, it's a matter of which class is more likely to be met with success over the course of play.

IMO, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards are at the top of this. Rogues and monks are at the bottom.

[gooddragon1]

Yah I strongly disagree. What class is most able to deliver answers and/or contribute to success over the course of varied encounters and challenges, and what is that magnitude of contribution. A class being better than another is not a matter of it outperforming another in any possible contrived scenario, it's a matter of which class is more likely to be met with success over the course of play.

IMO, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards are at the top of this. Rogues and monks are at the bottom.

The reason for that is, imo, that spellcasters can basically change out their class features by changing out their spell selections.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yah I strongly disagree. What class is most able to deliver answers and/or contribute to success over the course of varied encounters and challenges, and what is that magnitude of contribution. A class being better than another is not a matter of it outperforming another in any possible contrived scenario, it's a matter of which class is more likely to be met with success over the course of play.

IMO, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards are at the top of this. Rogues and monks are at the bottom.
That's 3.x edition Tier paridigm contaminating your understanding.
Let me frame this in a different way.
The game, 5e, assumes a party of 4 +/- 1 PCs. That's the model it's built upon.
The game has 12 PC classes. (I don't count the Artificer, but if that is included, it has 13)
Each party has its own logic.
For my own preferences, based on experience in parties from size 2 to size 8.
In a party of 3 I usually won't take monk, but might.
In a party of 4, maybe.
In a party of 5, I'll prefer one of the members to be a monk.

This is based on play at the table in Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4. (Granted, most of my Tier 4 monk play has been one shots, but it's quite enlightening)

I'll be happy to have a rogue in any party of any size.

[Skrum]

The reason for that is, imo, that spellcasters can basically change out their class features by changing out their spell selections.

Well not just that; spells are just better. A well-placed, well-timed 3rd level spell will often be more impactful than what a fighter or rogue will do for the entire encounter. And that's just one action.

[Skrum]

That's 3.x edition Tier paridigm contaminating your understanding.
Let me frame this in a different way.
The game, 5e, assumes a party of 4 +/- 1 PCs. That's the model it's built upon.
The game has 12 PC classes. (I don't count the Artificer, but if that is included, it has 13)
Each party has its own logic.
For my own preferences, based on experience in parties from size 2 to size 8.
In a party of 3 I usually won't take monk, but might.
In a party of 4, maybe.
In a party of 5, I'll prefer one of the members to be a monk.

This is based on play at the table in Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4. (Granted, most of my Tier 4 monk play has been one shots, but it's quite enlightening)

OK this is interesting, what does a monk deliver that one of the other classes doesn't (particularly a spellcaster).

I don't think you're wrong on this btw, but I don't know that we're talking about the quite the same thing. No matter what edition or game you're playing, the basic structure of (most) RPG's is the same in terms of encounter types. Battles, talking, stealth, etc. Some classes have lots of answers and contributions to make, and some have less. That's rather implicit to the game.

[Kane0]

@gooddragon1, I suggest you check out the spell Shadow Blade

[Keltest]

I'm reminded of the joke that goes something like "what do you call an athlete who goes to the Olympics and only gets one bronze medal? An Olympic athlete."


Something can be "the worst" in a given criteria and still be very, very good.

[Twelvetrees]

What class is most able to deliver answers and/or contribute to success over the course of varied encounters and challenges, and what is that magnitude of contribution.
My answer is Rogue. Reliable Talent doesn't get enough acknowledgement for being a tireless workhorse of a feature. Ability checks are one of the most common reasons to roll a d20 in the game and rogues excel at being able to succeed on these checks.


Well not just that; spells are just better. A well-placed, well-timed 3rd level spell will often be more impactful than what a fighter or rogue will do for the entire encounter. And that's just one action.
If we're talking low to mid levels and in the midst of a fight, yes, a 3rd level spell is going to be impactful. They're one of the most powerful spells a character can cast at those levels. If we start talking in a broader sense about all levels of the game and more than just fights, the value of rogues becomes more obvious. It's really nice to have someone in the party who you know can pass a skill check.

I'm not going to push back on fighters. :smalltongue:

[Skrum]

My answer is Rogue. Reliable Talent doesn't get enough acknowledgement for being a tireless workhorse of a feature. Ability checks are one of the most common reasons to roll a d20 in the game and rogues excel at being able to succeed on these checks.



Maybe....but passing skill checks is rarely all that impactful. I think rogues are in the running for the weakest class in the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

OK this is interesting, what does a monk deliver that one of the other classes doesn't (particularly a spellcaster).
Play and Find Out. :smallwink:
It wasn't until I got to play monks in 5e that I began to appreciate how well they fit.

PS: one of the most amazing things I ever saw was how a level 7 monk took out a Rakshasa while my sorcerer was utterly useless against it. But that's a bit of an edge case.

[Skrum]

Play and Find Out. :smallwink:
It wasn't until I got to play monks in 5e that I began to appreciate how well they fit.

PS: one of the most amazing things I ever saw was how a level 7 monk took out a Rakshasa while my sorcerer was utterly useless against it. But that's a bit of an edge case.

I've never played a monk, but I've played with one - and they're, idk, OK. We typically play with 5 players, and the monk makes a good utility force. But it often crosses my mind that we'd be better off with a character that is more dedicated to a particular role (i.e., we wouldn't need a character that can move extra fast and run up a wall to deliver a healing potion to fallen companion if we had a dedicated damage dealer/controller that helped end the combat that much faster).

[Petrocorus]

None of them.
And that, my friend, is where your problem lies; it is at the conceptual level.
Each party, as it is forms, either develops synergy or it doesn't.
How that works is a matter of how the players handle themselves.
I tend to disagree with this. The PHB Ranger fails to achieve its basic design intent. And WotC basically admitted it by trying to fix it 5 or 6 times before Tasha.


I've never played a monk, but I've played with one - and they're, idk, OK. We typically play with 5 players, and the monk makes a good utility force. But it often crosses my mind that we'd be better off with a character that is more dedicated to a particular role (i.e., we wouldn't need a character that can move extra fast and run up a wall to deliver a healing potion to fallen companion if we had a dedicated damage dealer/controller that helped end the combat that much faster).
I really don't think the Monk is underpowered. At least not as much as you say, but it is clearly a class that requires some system mastery and a good tactical sense.

[Kane0]

I tend to disagree with this. The PHB Ranger fails to achieve its basic design intent. And WotC basically admitted it by trying to fix it 5 or 6 times before Tasha.


They just didnt say so out loud, which is very annoying.

[Twelvetrees]

Maybe....but passing skill checks is rarely all that impactful. I think rogues are in the running for the weakest class in the game.
Skill checks tend to be the primary determination of whether characters can succeed at risky tasks out of combat in the games I play. It sounds like your games rely more heavily on spells. What do the the non-spellcasters do when faced with a challenge that they can't hit in the face with a sword?


I really don't think the Monk is underpowered. At least not as much as you say, but it is clearly a class that requires some system mastery and a good tactical sense.
Good tactical sense can be hard to come by. I've seen plenty of monks run up to enemies and then stand around waiting to get hit in return. If folks don't engage with the options they've got, I can see where the feeling of monks being underpowered would come from.

[animorte]

Skill checks tend to be the primary determination of whether characters can succeed at risky tasks out of combat in the games I play. It sounds like your games rely more heavily on spells. What do the the non-spellcasters do when faced with a challenge that they can't hit in the face with a sword?


I was kind of thinking the same thing. If skill checks are useless, then the game being played must be designed in such a way that skills are not being used. In that instance, they are useless, but not as whole.

[Segev]

No, but you apparently just did, so don't go putting words into my mouth, if you please. :smallconfused:
No, I am not. "essentially" is a weasel word.
You spoke that, not me. Please don't do stuff like that, it's really dishonest.
I'm not the one insulting people by calling them dishonest.

I am, however, puzzled, because you tell me that what I parsed your words as meaning isn't what you meant, but you haven't yet told me what you did mean, which would be the easiest way to refute it.

So: do you or do you not believe there is a "worst class?" A "best class?" I think this is a simple pair of yes-or-no questions that have the same answer. But I am open to more nuanced ones if you believe that "yes" or "no" would be misleading. But I would like you to explain, because my purpose in asking you was to get clarification, not to insult you.

[Kane0]

Might be worth distinguishing what kind of best and worst, like class design or class combat performance for example.

[Skrum]

Skill checks tend to be the primary determination of whether characters can succeed at risky tasks out of combat in the games I play. It sounds like your games rely more heavily on spells. What do the the non-spellcasters do when faced with a challenge that they can't hit in the face with a sword?.

Not at all; we use skills all the time, and even ported in skill challenges from 4th that get used quite frequently. The difference though is the consequences of failing a skill check vs failing in combat.

As much as 50% of the time, failing a skill check enriches the game by creating drama of one sort of another. Occasionally the players will fail a skill challenge, but the consequences are relatively minor - take some damage, lose an npc, that sort of thing.

Fail in combat and characters die, flat out.

The problem is skill checks are extremely underdeveloped in the game. Virtually all final confrontations, even minor boss battles or conflicts, get decided in combat. Deciding these things with skills, generally, is extremely unsatisfying because of the binary nature of skill checks (imagine summarizing an entire battle with a single or even a few d20 rolls).

Because of all that, making skill checks just isn't as important as being good at combat. It's a secondary part of the game (tertiary, even). A character dedicated to it just doesn't have nearly as useful of a skill (heh) as one that can crush combat.

And that's before adding in that many skills are entirely replaceable by 1st and 2nd level spells, if you *really* need to succeed.

[animorte]

Not at all; we use skills all the time, and even ported in skill challenges from 4th that get used quite frequently. The difference though is the consequences of failing a skill check vs failing in combat.

As much as 50% of the time, failing a skill check enriches the game by creating drama of one sort of another. Occasionally the players will fail a skill challenge, but the consequences are relatively minor - take some damage, lose an npc, that sort of thing.

Fail in combat and characters die, flat out.

The problem is skill checks are extremely underdeveloped in the game. Virtually all final confrontations, even minor boss battles or conflicts, get decided in combat. Deciding these things with skills, generally, is extremely unsatisfying because of the binary nature of skill checks (imagine summarizing an entire battle with a single or even a few d20 rolls).

Because of all that, making skill checks just isn't as important as being good at combat. It's a secondary part of the game (tertiary, even). A character dedicated to it just doesn't have nearly as useful of a skill (heh) as one that can crush combat.

And that's before adding in that many skills are entirely replaceable by 1st and 2nd level spells, if you *really* need to succeed.

I certainly will grant you that, skill checks being replaced by spells is somewhat of an issue with the skill design of the game. Provided the class/spell/slots are prepared for the situation. You definitely have an excellent point.

What I disagree with though is the impact that it can have on the game. I will say even while coming up with scenarios in which skills can be just as deadly or impactful as combat, I honestly can't help but keep thinking about your point of spells being able to replacing them. That being said, this isn't always the case since the right spell won't always be there. And some genuinely dangerous out of combat encounters can often come down to saves anyway.

Because of this, I think skills are intended to get you through the low levels until all the right spells DO come along.
BUT mainly it's to offer those classes that don't have access to these spells the ability to accomplish many various tasks in their own way.
Every character wants to be relevant. This falls under the casters just being able to do everything better though, which is a different thread entirely.

So to another point, skills checks can actually enrich the game in some dramatic aspect. I say let that happen and embrace the RP more?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm not the one insulting people by calling them dishonest.

I am, however, puzzled, because you tell me that what I parsed your words as meaning isn't what you meant, but you haven't yet told me what you did mean, which would be the easiest way to refute it.

The way I read the comment is that each class can succeed or fail in a particular party composition. It's not the barbarian classes fault if it fails to perform in a party that it has no synergy with, the class is functioning just fine, it's the party composition and players adapting to that composition failing to address the campaigns content.

[animorte]

The way I read the comment is that each class can succeed or fail in a particular party composition. It's not the barbarian classes fault if it fails to perform in a party that it has no synergy with, the class is functioning just fine, it's the party composition and players adapting to that composition failing to address the campaigns content.

Thinking about it, this could genuinely be an issue with a lot of situations now that you mention it. Like of course the party is going to have trouble sneaking into the bad guy army camp if there's only one rogue. And naturally the SPELL pass without trace solves this problem. Here we go with spells again.

[Skrum]

So to another point, skills checks can actually enrich the game in some dramatic aspect. I say let that happen and embrace the RP more?

That's exactly what we do! But the point being is that skills are now sharing space with RP, which while being an integral part of the game (the reason to play, in many ways), the penalty for being bad at skills just isn't there. To wit: a character with chronic foot in mouth disease is "bad" at talking to npc's but is quite possibly a great and memorable character. They "lose" the discreet challenges of the game while making the overall play experience worthwhile.

Combat isn't *never* like this, but there are often far more dire and immediate consequences for characters that are bad at fighting.

A party of all rogues could absolutely excel, but it would take a more tailored approach by the DM. I would expect them to struggle when it came to random encounter tables or other instances where they need to perform like a more "typical" party.

[Boci]

I'm not the one insulting people by calling them dishonest.

I am, however, puzzled, because you tell me that what I parsed your words as meaning isn't what you meant, but you haven't yet told me what you did mean, which would be the easiest way to refute it.

So: do you or do you not believe there is a "worst class?" A "best class?" I think this is a simple pair of yes-or-no questions that have the same answer. But I am open to more nuanced ones if you believe that "yes" or "no" would be misleading. But I would like you to explain, because my purpose in asking you was to get clarification, not to insult you.

Whilst you seem to be implying there is a worst class. If so, which is it? Because if you ask 10 people which is the "worst" class, and they all give varied answer, then it seems "there is no worst class" is a valid conclusion to draw from that.

[Skrum]

Whilst you seem to be implying there is a worst class. If so, which is it? Because if you ask 10 people which is the "worst" class, and they all give varied answer, then it seems "there is no worst class" is a valid conclusion to draw from that.

People can have plenty of opinions that are factually wrong. The existents of dissent does not mean neither position is correct.

[Boci]

People can have plenty of opinions that are factually wrong. The existents of dissent does not mean neither position is correct.

No, but generally when it comes to a game and entertainment, it stops being factual.

What's the best Agatha Christie novel?

The best side quest in Witcher 3?

What was the worst season of a crime series in 2018?

[Keltest]

Whilst you seem to be implying there is a worst class. If so, which is it? Because if you ask 10 people which is the "worst" class, and they all give varied answer, then it seems "there is no worst class" is a valid conclusion to draw from that.

I mean, definitionally any sort of ranking system is going to have a worst entry. It may be beyond these forums to identify it objectively, but it is there.


The best side quest in Witcher 3?

That one in Blood and Wine with the horse spirit haunting the knight, where geralt takes the potion and Roach talks.

Bad example, that one has an easy answer.

[Boci]

I mean, definitionally any sort of ranking system is going to have a worst entry. It may be beyond these forums to identify it objectively, but it is there.

Yes, but being the worst of a single list is not the same as being the worst. Its about as useful as asking me what I think the weight of the universe it.


That one in Blood and Wine with the horse spirit haunting the knight, where geralt takes the potion and Roach talks.

Bad example, that one has an easy answer.

Nah, I disagree. Gotta be little red riding hood.

[Keltest]

Nah, I disagree. Gotta be little red riding hood.

Isnt that a main quest? Im replaying it right now, but i havent gotten that far yet, so its a little hazy.

[Boci]

Isnt that a main quest? Im replaying it right now, but i havent gotten that far yet, so its a little hazy.

Nope, side quest.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not the one insulting people by calling them dishonest. The action, not the person, I've enjoyed discussing stuff with you here for a number of years.

do you or do you not believe there is a "worst class?" A "best class?"
I do not believe that there is a 'worst' class, for sure. I thought I had made that clear.
As to 'best class' I do not care for how vague that question is.
Best for what?
There are enough very good classes that 'best' will boil down to
(1) group make up (2) group size (3) taste (4) the nature of a given campaign.
I also reject the assumption, built into that kind of question, of competition between players in a given party.

Caveat: I have a personal bias for clerics, but that is likely informed by my own style of play; I value team work and team synergy over individual achievement. I also like Rangers, and, ya know, there are so many classes and so many things to like that I find the entire negative attitude necessary to try and declare a class "worst" to be both off putting and counterproductive.

[Skrum]

No, but generally when it comes to a game and entertainment, it stops being factual.

What's the best Agatha Christie novel?

The best side quest in Witcher 3?

What was the worst season of a crime series in 2018?

Well those judgements are entirely to personal taste. Classes do have numbers and explicit abilities, and there's at least some estimate for how effective a class is in aggregate. Barbarians for instance are usually referred to weak because of their extremely narrow focus and lack of options.

[Boci]

Well those judgements are entirely to personal taste. Classes do have numbers and explicit abilities, and there's at least some estimate for how effective a class is in aggregate. Barbarians for instance are usually referred to weak because of their extremely narrow focus and lack of options.

And what if the game has a narrow focus too? Then the barbarian's lack of options might matter less. What if the DM's typical encounter design favours sustainable brute force as a solution? Then the barbarian likely more than carries their weight.

And besides, the conversation started with "worst", not "weakest". Those are not the same.

[Skrum]

And what if the game has a narrow focus too? Then the barbarian's lack of options might matter less. What if the DM's typical encounter design favours sustainable brute force as a solution? Then the barbarian likely more than carries their weight.

And besides, the conversation started with "worst", not "weakest". Those are not the same.

In the context of ranking 13 classes, worst and weakest are synonymous.

No class is unplayable, we agree on that. If we can agree that a Twilight Cleric has more tools and more to offer than a 4 Elements Monk, than we can also agree that the game isn't perfectly balanced and some classes are "better" than others. At which point, some class must be the worst/weakest. By definition.

[Boci]

In the context of ranking 13 classes, worst and weakest are synonymous.

According to you. To someone else, "worst" could mean "least fun".

[Keltest]

According to you. To someone else, "worst" could mean "least fun".

Nobody has been ranking them by fun though. The context this started over was pretty clearly mechanical performance.

Besides, "fun" is not an objective criteria, while the numbers are.

[Boci]

Nobody has been ranking them by fun though. The context this started over was pretty clearly mechanical performance.

Besides, "fun" is not an objective criteria, while the numbers are.

"Mechanical performance" isn't objective either, because you don't know what challenges a hypothetical DM will use. "Mechanical performance in an official module run strictly RAW" is, but not just "mechanical performance".

[Twelvetrees]

Not at all; we use skills all the time, and even ported in skill challenges from 4th that get used quite frequently. The difference though is the consequences of failing a skill check vs failing in combat.

As much as 50% of the time, failing a skill check enriches the game by creating drama of one sort of another. Occasionally the players will fail a skill challenge, but the consequences are relatively minor - take some damage, lose an npc, that sort of thing.

Fail in combat and characters die, flat out.

This appears to be the crux of the matter. I'm used to failure states for skill challenges and combats being about the same.

I've seen a number of fights break down into negotiations, or end with one side fleeing the field, or end when one side gets the macguffin of the week from the other. When characters die in combat, it's usually only after a number of warning signs have been ignored or a large number of sequential failures.

I take it you've got a much different experience with fights that don't go the party's way?

[Skrum]

This appears to be the crux of the matter. I'm used to failure states for skill challenges and combats being about the same.

I've seen a number of fights break down into negotiations, or end with one side fleeing the field, or end when one side gets the macguffin of the week from the other. When characters die in combat, it's usually only after a number of warning signs have been ignored or a large number of sequential failures.

I take it you've got a much different experience with fights that don't go the party's way?

I mean usually the fights do go the party's way. And when they don't, running is usually an effective option. But once it wasn't, and 2 characters died.

It is honestly a total feel-bad to think about someone losing a character during a "5 successes before 3 failures" skill challenge. Is that really how your table plays?

[Skrum]

"Mechanical performance" isn't objective either, because you don't know what challenges a hypothetical DM will use. "Mechanical performance in an official module run strictly RAW" is, but not just "mechanical performance".

Could a DM make a game that's nothing but social intrigue and the character that has +10 to each social skill is a god? Obviously. But that is not the typical game.

The majority of rolls are made in combat, against a menagerie of opponents. Skill checks take an ancillary but not unimportant spot, and generally fall into talking, scouting, or exploration. This is the typical game. Under those assumptions, some classes are more effective than others.

This is about taking the long view. What class is going to have more answers/options during dozens or hundreds of scenarios that happen in a game.

[Naanomi]

It's funny, I find a given skill check is more important than any given roll in combat. Hits or misses, saving throw success or failure... Expected to ebb and flow in any given conflict. But peace can hinge on a single Persuasion check, every Stealth roll is vital in an infiltration, etc

[Boci]

Could a DM make a game that's nothing but social intrigue and the character that has +10 to each social skill is a god? Obviously. But that is not the typical game.

The majority of rolls are made in combat, against a menagerie of opponents. Skill checks take an ancillary but not unimportant spot, and generally fall into talking, scouting, or exploration. This is the typical game. Under those assumptions, some classes are more effective than others.

And already we're at a disagreement. You say Mon and Rogue are the worst, but Keltest says barbarian is weak because of its narrow focus. Yet you are describing a test set up that will likely play to the barbarian strengths: combat. They can do that well.

So already we're getting different results, presumably from different assumptions.

Another problem is majority of rolls vs. importance. Sure yes, combat will typically take 20+ rolls, whilst a skill check could just be 1, maybe 4 if the entire party has to make it. But those skill checks could avoid the combat all together, which means comparing 1 to 20+ is misleading.

[Twelvetrees]

It is honestly a total feel-bad to think about someone losing a character during a "5 successes before 3 failures" skill challenge. Is that really how your table plays?
Yes. But take that with a giant grain of salt, because the skill challenges I've run and experienced have had multiple degrees of failure, instead of a binary pass/fail outcome. So characters can and have have died by continuing on past the typical failure point.

Maybe an example would help. My party had found a dragon's hoard and knew that it was heavily trapped. The skill challenge was based around trying to get various chunks of the hoard into their bags without triggering pieces of the trap. Failing the skill challenge would bath the entire room in lethal levels of elemental energies, both protecting the treasure and alerting other occupants of the dungeon to the party's presence. They failed the skill challenge and had just enough time to dive out of the room to escape the worst effects. One character decided to tank the effects to try to get more treasure. He died.


The majority of rolls are made in combat, against a menagerie of opponents. Skill checks take an ancillary but not unimportant spot, and generally fall into talking, scouting, or exploration. This is the typical game.
That is your typical game and my typical game differs - which is cool! D&D is broad enough that it allows us to have a diverse array of ways to play. It just means that what classes are valued highly at your table are likely to be different from what classes are valued highly at my table.

[animorte]

In order for there to be a worst or best of an category, the conditions and confines of the category ultimately define the possible outcomes. That and the roll of the dice.

[Petrocorus]

They just didnt say so out loud, which is very annoying.
They never admit explicitly any mistake, and they never properly fix anything.
But i ranted enough on that subject.


Good tactical sense can be hard to come by. I've seen plenty of monks run up to enemies and then stand around waiting to get hit in return. If folks don't engage with the options they've got, I can see where the feeling of monks being underpowered would come from.
This is true, and i believe this is the main cause of the bad rep of the Monk. People tend to believe that because the Monk is a martial class, they could just play it like a Fighter and get the same result.

Same issue with the Warlock, some people tend to believe it's just another full caster and don't understand why they don't get the same results.

[Skrum]

This is true, and i believe this is the main cause of the bad rep of the Monk. People tend to believe that because the Monk is a martial class, they could just play it like a Fighter and get the same result.



Ok so how is a monk going to move in and out of combat? Spending Ki? This is exactly the problem with monk: every one of the abilities that lets a monk be a monk spend Ki. Ergo, if they have to fight more than ~3 rounds without a short rest (until they get to at least 10th) and they're tapped. And a monk with no Ki is in a pretty bad place.

Double their ki pool, and they'd be in a decent place.

[Ganryu]

Ok so how is a monk going to move in and out of combat? Spending Ki? This is exactly the problem with monk: every one of the abilities that lets a monk be a monk spend Ki. Ergo, if they have to fight more than ~3 rounds without a short rest (until they get to at least 10th) and they're tapped. And a monk with no Ki is in a pretty bad place.

Double their ki pool, and they'd be in a decent place.

Incredibly off topic, but almost every subclass of monk has an escape option.

Drunk has mobile feat more or less
Open palm kills reactions,
Shadow teleports,

Etc.

But, uh, why are all of us so off topic?

[Skrum]

Incredibly off topic, but almost every subclass of monk has an escape option.

Drunk has mobile feat more or less
Open palm kills reactions,
Shadow teleports,

Etc.

But, uh, why are all of us so off topic?

Yah idk .... NVM me lol

[Segev]

Whilst you seem to be implying there is a worst class. If so, which is it? Because if you ask 10 people which is the "worst" class, and they all give varied answer, then it seems "there is no worst class" is a valid conclusion to draw from that.I actually am more in this on a meta-argument level, because it rubs me like an eyelash under a contact lens when I see a logically inconsistent position. And the position Korvin seemed to be taking was, "The classes are not all equal, but there is none that are any more or less than the others." Which is inherently contradictory to me, and hence why I'm trying to pin down what he means.


The action, not the person, I've enjoyed discussing stuff with you here for a number of years.

I do not believe that there is a 'worst' class, for sure. I thought I had made that clear.
As to 'best class' I do not care for how vague that question is.
Best for what?
There are enough very good classes that 'best' will boil down to
(1) group make up (2) group size (3) taste (4) the nature of a given campaign.
I also reject the assumption, built into that kind of question, of competition between players in a given party.

Caveat: I have a personal bias for clerics, but that is likely informed by my own style of play; I value team work and team synergy over individual achievement. I also like Rangers, and, ya know, there are so many classes and so many things to like that I find the entire negative attitude necessary to try and declare a class "worst" to be both off putting and counterproductive.
Okay. I guess my main issue is that I was not seeing you shift from "overall" to "situationally" between saying "there is no worst class" and "not all classes are equal."

I can agree that both statements are logically consistent in their own separate contexts, though. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not really sure which class I would say is "worst" or "best," but I suppose, thinking about it, if I were to try, the criteria I'd run on are how well the class delivers on the class fantasy, especially in comparison to other class options. e.g., is Cleric the best way to play "holy man/priest?" (not only, but best) and feel like you're nailing the concept? Or are there other classes that will, in general, do it better? I'd have a secondary consideration of whether any competing classes that do it "well enough" will also be generally more fun to play/let you participate better in the game/be more powerful while still sticking to the theme.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is an apple the same as an orange? No. Is an apple better or worse than an orange? Well, that's not so easy.

Only things that can be rank ordered comparably can be rank ordered. Can classes be rank ordered? Not universally or objectively, at least in the abstract universal sense. They can be compared on sub metrics, but those metrics aren't universal truths, they're selectively valid and only for some games.

For instance, a dpr comparison won't matter in most of my games. That's rarely if ever the binding constraint. But it might in other games.

[animorte]

Is an apple the same as an orange? No. Is an apple better or worse than an orange? Well, that's not so easy.

Only things that can be rank ordered comparably can be rank ordered. Can classes be rank ordered? Not universally or objectively, at least in the abstract universal sense. They can be compared on sub metrics, but those metrics aren't universal truths, they're selectively valid and only for some games.

For instance, a dpr comparison won't matter in most of my games. That's rarely if ever the binding constraint. But it might in other games.

I like this. People are far too inclined to only judge what is good for covering the most roles in the party at once while providing the highest dpr/control/utility/everything possible. That's how best/worst ideals happen.

[Segev]

"Equal" and "Equivalent" are two different things. "All classes are equal" doesn't mean they're all the same; it means they are all good enough in enough areas and at their own schtick that no other class overshadows them and they have solid reason to be played without feeling like you've made a mistake by choosing to play them in all cases that you play them. I would expect that, if there is a "best" class, it is a class that can fill its own role as an iconic class fantasy, and that it probably can fill a number of other roles or fulfil a number of off-brand fantasies, and do them all very well. It can probably do so better than other classes. If there is a "worst" class, it is a class that either only fulfils its own fantasy, and still feels "wanting" even then, or maybe doesn't even fulfil its own fantasy as well as another class could. It likely is overshadowed by one or more other classes even in its area of alleged strength.

[Keltest]

"Equal" and "Equivalent" are two different things. "All classes are equal" doesn't mean they're all the same; it means they are all good enough in enough areas and at their own schtick that no other class overshadows them and they have solid reason to be played without feeling like you've made a mistake by choosing to play them in all cases that you play them. I would expect that, if there is a "best" class, it is a class that can fill its own role as an iconic class fantasy, and that it probably can fill a number of other roles or fulfil a number of off-brand fantasies, and do them all very well. It can probably do so better than other classes. If there is a "worst" class, it is a class that either only fulfils its own fantasy, and still feels "wanting" even then, or maybe doesn't even fulfil its own fantasy as well as another class could. It likely is overshadowed by one or more other classes even in its area of alleged strength.

Cough PHB Ranger cough.

[Boci]

Cough PHB Ranger cough.

And we're back to personal preference again, because I've played with people who enjoy the PHB ranger. In one game, a player went with ranger, and in the next game we played another player rolled ranger because they liked the way it played with the other player.

[Segev]

And we're back to personal preference again, because I've played with people who enjoy the PHB ranger. In one game, a player went with ranger, and in the next game we played another player rolled ranger because they liked the way it played with the other player.

Since Ranger is often a ... problem child ... in these discussions, I am curious what your friends played them as. What subclasses, what spells, and what play styles did they give them?

[Naanomi]

I think the optional class features did a lot to revitalize Ranger to me. The bonuses they replaced were situational and often covered things (overland travel, monster lore) that were not emphasized at many tables even when they did apply

[Boci]

Since Ranger is often a ... problem child ... in these discussions, I am curious what your friends played them as. What subclasses, what spells, and what play styles did they give them?

So, two games:

First game: Lost Mines of Pandelver, which the DM gradually tweaked as they got more and more dissatisfied with the base module, until by the final session we were trying to find a book that could be used to summon gods to cure two character of an otherwise unbreakable death curse, and there was also a mindflayer trapped in the forest near the castle.

GM
Half-elf Cleric of Light
Wood Elf Ranger Hunter
Half-elf feypact warlock (me)

Second game: Desert game, set after a 100 year sandstorm finally, and abruptly, ended.
GM (me)
Human Open Palm Monk (formerly ranger)
Human Ranger Hunter (formerly cleric)
Half-elf genie pact walrock (formerly GM, also notable the only character to use non-core stuff, though both GMs did use homebrew stuff)

So yes, the desert setting probably contributed to choice, but they still had to like what they saw, and its not like the first player was dissatisfied with class. But yes, notable they both played hunters. I think the ability to consistently deal good damage, from range, with minimal investment and also be not terrible at healing was a big draw to the class.

[Segev]

So, two games:

First game: Lost Mines of Pandelver, which the DM gradually tweaked as they got more and more dissatisfied with the base module, until by the final session we were trying to find a book that could be used to summon gods to cure two character of an otherwise unbreakable death curse, and there was also a mindflayer trapped in the forest near the castle.

GM
Half-elf Cleric of Light
Wood Elf Ranger Hunter
Half-elf feypact warlock (me)

Second game: Desert game, set after a 100 year sandstorm finally, and abruptly, ended.
GM (me)
Human Open Palm Monk (formerly ranger)
Human Ranger Hunter (formerly cleric)
Half-elf genie pact walrock (formerly GM, also notable the only character to use non-core stuff, though both GMs did use homebrew stuff)

So yes, the desert setting probably contributed to choice, but they still had to like what they saw, and its not like the first player was dissatisfied with class. But yes, notable they both played hunters. I think the ability to consistently deal good damage, from range, with minimal investment and also be not terrible at healing was a big draw to the class.

Thanks! Good data to add to my mental model.

[paladinn]

Since Ranger is often a ... problem child ... in these discussions, I am curious what your friends played them as. What subclasses, what spells, and what play styles did they give them?

I might recommend my Hunter Fighter subclass :)

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?643497-Ranger-Champion-Alternative

The Hunter subclass features have little to do with the actual btb Ranger class and spells, which are mediocre at best. The Hunter actually works better on a Fighter chassis.

IMO, really the only reason to play a btb Ranger is for the Other subclasses: Beastmaster, Horizon Walker, etc. And even they might be adapted as Fighters.