Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

[AdAstra]

A sniper character who doesn't shoot more than once per round and isn't a rogue. A finesse fighter that doesn't need to either use a rapier or reskin something. Corollary, a fighter who uses a single weapon without homebrewing a way for it not to be strictly worse than using a shield.

The old Artificer Gunsmith had a lot of that, though it's certainly not a conventional sniper. Sadly I think one big powerful shot is liable not to play very well by its nature. Being able to lose all your damage in a turn to one bad roll rarely feels good. Any sniper would need means of mitigating that risk, but things like hiding are already covered by the rogue, and things like a bonus action Aim are not particularly interesting mechanics, in addition to taking up room in the turn.

Finesse fighter, yeah, it's annoying. Closest you can get is a Monk multiclass (Kensei for more options).

Aside from great weapon builds (not particularly hard to say that your greatsword is just a special regular sword), you could refluff a glaive or halberd as another type of slashing weapon. The extra reach could be justified as good footwork.

[Renvir]

The old Artificer Gunsmith had a lot of that, though it's certainly not a conventional sniper. Sadly I think one big powerful shot is liable not to play very well by its nature. Being able to lose all your damage in a turn to one bad roll rarely feels good. Any sniper would need means of mitigating that risk, but things like hiding are already covered by the rogue, and things like a bonus action Aim are not particularly interesting mechanics, in addition to taking up room in the turn.

A War Cleric X/Fighter 1 could meet these requirements. The combination of Archery FS, Bless, and Guided Strike makes for a high hit rate. Just take the Sharpshooter Feat and you've got a sniper that only attacks once per turn and isn't a rogue.

[JNAProductions]

A War Cleric X/Fighter 1 could meet these requirements. The combination of Archery FS, Bless, and Guided Strike makes for a high hit rate. Just take the Sharpshooter Feat and you've got a sniper that only attacks once per turn and isn't a rogue.

And at higher levels is way better off casting a spell than shooting.

[DracoKnight]

And at higher levels is way better off casting a spell than shooting.

Well, that’s just when you call in a Tactical (Flame) Strike.

[Tanarii]

Primal Barbarians, channeling into animal or elemental forms. Also Wardens. That was a missed opportunity coming from the last edition.

[T.G. Oskar]

Well, I dunno about PF, but the concept of shapeshifter without casting was done pretty well in the 2 prestige classes I mention; either turn into an animal / monster, or shapeshift your own form to give it extra natural attacks, faster healing, etc. Barbarian's path is even with refluffing a bit 'meh' implementation of it. And I don't see those classes as specialists, they (MoMF, Warshaper, Bear Warrior) were all prime melee/fighters. Don't know how I 'd see them working in the 5e framework, but it's really missing.

Oh, I'll admit - Warshaper is pretty boss, particularly if you had something good to go with it. It's not meant for a primary trick, though; that is, you don't make a build around the Warshaper, but instead use it to enhance a build that relies on shapeshifting. Or at least, that's how I see it - while it has some amazing benefits (+STR/CON, reach, fast healing, immunity to crits and sneak attacks, and of course the extra attack, which could instead allow an existing attack to become more powerful), it was mostly a bunch of solid passive bonuses and one solid source of attack. I could see it on a Cabinet Trickster, though, since between the two you also have the Thought Tricks and whatnot.

However, they're not meant to exist as a class by itself - which is what they did with the PF Shifter. They made an entire class about Wild Shape, but in a way that's all or nothing. It's a cool concept, but not one to fully base a class upon. Now, I'll admit that 5e's Wild Shape is a bit crazy (since it essentially mostly adds your mental attributes to the monster's stat block), but if that's the entire basis for your class, then it's lacking. To put it simply: what would be the subclasses for that class? You could say that you could focus on a specific creature type (one that shifts into Elementals, one that shifts into Celestials, one who shifts into Fiends, etc.), but you'd have to define the basis, and define what other features they get. That's in a way what PF tried to do with their own shapeshfiting class, and it ended up weaker than they thought, because while you had a lot of uses of wildshaping, you'd end up somewhat similar to 3.5's Monk where you became super-dependent on magic items, instead of being the opposite. Sure, you can fly, but only if you turn into a Small creature, which isn't meant for battle.

That's why I said that it's better as a subclass, and as you mentioned - Prestige Classes were the most efficient ways to do so. I could add the Shapeshifter from Oriental Adventures which was a way to grant Wild Shape in a certain way, but they had to be tied to a class first. As it stands, the Path of the Beast for the Barbarian is the closest thing, since while it doesn't grant full shapeshifting (it's more akin to a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde thing, or even a Bruce Banner/Hulk thing, except both sides are feral instead of one), it still is explicitly fluffed as one. I could see a Barbarian going Bear Warrior, though. In a way, Circle of the Moon Druids also explicitly deal with shapeshifting, in that they improve the shapeshifting abilities of the Druid.

But in short - it's ill-fitting as a class by itself, and there's evidence to it. Bear Warrior was close, but MoMF required previous spellcasting, and Warshaper was only 5 levels long and a buff rather than a build-maker. I could see it as a subclass...and Path of the Beast and Circle of the Moon already deal with that.

This could be done pretty easy I think -would take a new class, like Artificer though. All those vestige gave a few small abilities, making the char a bit better in melee, or a bit like a rogue... never as good as the real thing, but decent abilities, and a bit weird, and combining more vestiges made cool and unique combo's possible. The summoning vestige wouldn't be possible in the 5e framework (that's much more simplified), but it was an obscure vestige from a web article, not in the book.

Again, too complicated. While it wouldn't need to be mechanically complicated - you could make it so that each Vestige acts like a subclass, and every day you essentially change your subclass - it could be a nightmare for book-keeping, which is something that would drive away some of the people that got into the game for its simplicity. Even suggesting the idea makes for a radical departure of the way classes are built in 5e. Not that it wouldn't be cool to see the Binder return, but...heck, even in 4e, it was an alternate class for the Warlock.

(And yes, I specifically chose Zceryll because it literally changed the power level of the class. By certain levels, some vestiges were just not useful - sure, you could combine, say, Andromalius and Savnok and Tenebrous and have a sort of Paladin...but who seriously uses...say, the architect vestige whose name escapes me? And that wasn't a low-level vestige, that's a 5th to 7th level one. Yes, it allowed you to be a little bit of everything, and could make for cool combinations, but not all of them were good enough.)

[TigerT20]

The old Artificer Gunsmith had a lot of that, though it's certainly not a conventional sniper. Sadly I think one big powerful shot is liable not to play very well by its nature. Being able to lose all your damage in a turn to one bad roll rarely feels good. Any sniper would need means of mitigating that risk, but things like hiding are already covered by the rogue, and things like a bonus action Aim are not particularly interesting mechanics, in addition to taking up room in the turn.

Finesse fighter, yeah, it's annoying. Closest you can get is a Monk multiclass (Kensei for more options).

Aside from great weapon builds (not particularly hard to say that your greatsword is just a special regular sword), you could refluff a glaive or halberd as another type of slashing weapon. The extra reach could be justified as good footwork.

I think they might mean one-handed weapons specifically, as polearms and other two-handed weapon builds are pretty popular

[LudicSavant]

Strong archers. Think of Hercules, or the story of Odysseus where he proved his identity by having the strength to bend his bow. Others examples include characters like Hawkeye, who is presented as having a great deal of physical strength (in the comics, he uses an insane 200 pound draw bow and is shown to be ridiculously strong for a human. And other people keep failing to draw his bow (additional link)).

Fun thing from real life: You can identify the bones of historical bowmen because their training messes up their body in interesting ways.

And yet in D&D, bowmen dump Strength.

[JackPhoenix]

Strong archers. Think of Hercules, or the story of Odysseus where he proved his identity by having the strength to bend his bow. Others examples include characters like Hawkeye, who is presented as having a great deal of physical strength (in the comics, he uses an insane 200 pound draw bow and is shown to be ridiculously strong for a human. And other people keep failing to draw his bow (additional link)).

Fun thing from real life: You can identify the bones of historical bowmen because their training messes up their body in interesting ways.

And yet in D&D, bowmen dump Strength.

Not if they play WDH and want 2d6+Str bow. Though that one's non-magical, so less usable at higher levels.

[MrStabby]

Strong archers. Think of Hercules, or the story of Odysseus where he proved his identity by having the strength to bend his bow. Others examples include characters like Hawkeye, who is presented as having a great deal of physical strength (in the comics, he uses an insane 200 pound draw bow and is shown to be ridiculously strong for a human. And other people keep failing to draw his bow (additional link)).

Fun thing from real life: You can identify the bones of historical bowmen because their training messes up their body in interesting ways.

And yet in D&D, bowmen dump Strength.

So this is in the category of agreeing with as I think there is a real gap here that could be fixed (does it need a new class? Or would a feat that let's Str impact archery suffice)?

On the other hand, and at a personal level, not a character I would want to play.

[TigerT20]

Strong archers.

And yet in D&D, bowmen dump Strength.

You could give longbows the Finesse trait... but it would be a suboptimal choice to use Strength every time due to how much better Dexterity is in 5E

[MrStabby]

You could give longbows the Finesse trait... but it would be a suboptimal choice to use Strength every time due to how much better Dexterity is in 5E

One advantage of dex is that it supports well both melee and ranges weapon attacks. If strength did, it would close the gap. In reality this change would just mean pole arm master paladins would have a better ranged option than javalins rather than opening new concepts. . . I think.

[Wasp]

I have talked to someone who was dissatisfied that you could focus on DEX for Bows (and some other weapons) while it's apparently very important to have STR for an archer, so they chose to change weapon fighting to use (STR + DEX)/2 instead. I have no ideas how that works in practice and must admit that I just found it funny considering they didn't change anything about HP and rest... ;-)

[Zetakya]

Strength not affecting bow damage is one of those artefacts of 5e being simplified to permit and encourage SAD builds. The same as DEX no longer being utilised for accuracy of touch/ranged touch spells from casters. There's no longer a trade off to be made; each class just has one stat to rule all its abilities.

[JNAProductions]

I have talked to someone who was dissatisfied that you could focus on DEX for Bows (and some other weapons) while it's apparently very important to have STR for an archer, so they chose to change weapon fighting to use (STR + DEX)/2 instead. I have no ideas how that works in practice and must admit that I just found it funny considering they didn't change anything about HP and rest... ;-)

It's a big nerf to pretty much any weapon user.

[Wasp]

It's a big nerf to pretty much any weapon user.

But in the name of "realism" sacrifices have to be made!

BUT: I do think wanting a STR based Longbow Archer isn't a bad thing. I had just problems with that particular person I met outside of this forum and their framing. You are all OK and lovely!

[3drinks]

You don't even have to multiclass. You can easily flavor a warlock as having escaped the control of their patron, and their increase in power (as they gain warlock levels) is essentially a side effect of their initial pact. You could even flavor enemies to be agents of the patron, hunting down the apostate. That's exactly how my brother ran his.

Regarding your original question, it depends on how hard you're willing to fluff, and how much you're willing to let slide for game balance. For example, you could have a "no magic" healer by describing your cleric's healing magic as based on medical tools, specialized equipment, first aid kits, and so forth. You have to be willing to explain how "non magic" means can be affected by things like antimagical fields, though. But perhaps magic is less of a strict concept in that setting and really just refers to any reasonably sophisticated tech? I guess the setting would inform that to a large degree.

I find it hard to really get trapped if I'm willing to revisualize how features and classes appear in the game.

Isn't that just about what Fjord did on Critical Role?

[LudicSavant]

I have talked to someone who was dissatisfied that you could focus on DEX for Bows (and some other weapons) while it's apparently very important to have STR for an archer, so they chose to change weapon fighting to use (STR + DEX)/2 instead. I have no ideas how that works in practice and must admit that I just found it funny considering they didn't change anything about HP and rest... ;-)

This would just make the issue worse; people would not play Dex or Str archers. Just Hexblades using Charisma

[Daphne]

I want to see a Fighter subclass that focus on defensive features instead of offensive ones. Not talking about tanking as in protecting allies.

[elyktsorb]

Can I just say I wish the Spore druid was better? Because I want that >_>

[micahaphone]

I want to see a Fighter subclass that focus on defensive features instead of offensive ones. Not talking about tanking as in protecting allies.

Like the Cavalier, ignoring their mounted perks?

Maybe wotc is apprehensive about a more defensive fighter because it gets too close to barbarian.

[Daphne]

Like the Cavalier, ignoring their mounted perks?

Cavalier focuses on protecting allies, not himself.

[micahaphone]

Cavalier focuses on protecting allies, not himself.

What would you want out of a tankier fighter subclass that's not a part of barbarian? A way to increase AC? I could see a fighter with something like the forge cleric's armor boost, but that alone isn't enough for a subclass.

[Daphne]

What would you want out of a tankier fighter subclass that's not a part of barbarian? A way to increase AC? I could see a fighter with something like the forge cleric's armor boost, but that alone isn't enough for a subclass.

There are multiple ways to make a Fighter tankier: AC bonuses, damage reduction abilities, resistances, bonus to saving throws...

Besides, Barbarians have a very specific tribal flavor and get their damage resistances to compensate for their lower AC and Reckless Attack.

[LudicSavant]

There are multiple ways to make a Fighter tankier: AC bonuses, damage reduction abilities, resistances, bonus to saving throws...

Eldritch Knights can do all four of those things.

[Daphne]

Eldritch Knights can do all four of those things.

I should have specified that I was wishing for a non-magical subclass.

[Man_Over_Game]

I want to see a Fighter subclass that focus on defensive features instead of offensive ones. Not talking about tanking as in protecting allies.

You could also pull that off with Battlemaster Maneuvers. Several are based around avoiding damage.

One thing of note, though:. If you spend all of your energy on making yourself a difficult target, they'll decide to target someone else, and then what do you do?

The reason the Cavalier works is because it believes the Fighter is already tanky enough for enemies to have a reason to ignore him.

[Daphne]

You could also pull that off with Battlemaster Maneuvers. Several are based around avoiding damage.

I do like the Parry maneuver at low levels, too bad it pigeonholes you in a DEX build and practically doesn't scale.

[Morty]

There's a number of these that would be solved if D&D didn't desperately pigeon-hole characters into using one particular attribute above all others. With the game typically deciding on the attribute in advance.

[Man_Over_Game]

There's a number of these that would be solved if D&D didn't desperately pigeon-hole characters into using one particular attribute above all others. With the game typically deciding on the attribute in advance.

Not intended as a mean to plug, but my Prestige Options Homebrew was designed around addressing that exact issue, while also fixing any multiclassing concerns from doing so.

It has notes on justification for each option too, so it's more than just "some guy on the internet said these were cool" if you decide to present it to your DM. Link is in the signature, if it interests you. I've spent a lot more time on it than is probably healthy, and I still update it whenever I get Inspiration for a new option (most recent being con-based Sorcerers).