For 5.5/6.0 Edition, what Missing Class would you like to see in the Core?

[anthon]

5e is pretty strong in sales, but times change and inevitably, be it 2022 or 2025+, there's going to be some Edition revision like with 3.5e, or a 6e.

What I would like to know, is over all these editions, as you have seen, some new classes have been added to core, and some old ones taken out. Still a few popular ones were always and forever Appendix, Splatbook, Erretta, or Sagelore musings, rather than something you could flip open the Players/DMG and say "this is a core class from the get-go" and not fear it being perma banned from stuff like RPGA/Adventurers League or missing from Video Game Adaptations.

By Core, i mean CORE, preferably PHB, but possibly DMG in a pinch.

The Artificer/Armorer for example appeared very late in the game, meanwhile the Warlock was in the PHB. Back in AD&D a lot of good classes appeared in Unearthed Arcana or Oriental Adventures, but weren't considered Core, and that trend persisted for decades.

We all know there should probably be a thief, fighter, mage, and cleric,

but what do you think should be essential? What classes and mechanics tied to those classes do you think needs to be there from the very beginning, so it doesn't alienate people from ever playing those classes, or get forced to homebrew variants which are frequently booted or booed from tables for lack of "authentic, approved RAW"?

[OldTrees1]

The At-Will Mage. 3E called it Warlock. Soonest we would see it return would be 6E.

[LordShade]

Psionicist is the only major class I can think of that isn't in the core books. But traditionally, it's always been released separately. I think they ought to keep it that way.

[ftafp]

psion and artificer need to be core. I'm not sure any others need to be. maybe warlord/marshal?

[Silpharon]

Enchanter, but maybe not called that... More like enchanting from elder scrolls than d&d.

Imagine a character with a set of wands, each holding a different enchantment to cast various spells, but without spell slots. Instead, each item has a charge system (as is common today), but you can recharge them with energy from the souls of those you destroy. You have proficiency with enchanter tools, that include soul gems to hold charges and apply to your items. You make your own enchanted items with these soul gems, determining their strength (equivalent spell slot level) by the CR of the creature's soul you use to make them.

It would be a lot like an artificer with infusions to make these magical trinkets, but each level you gain a known enchantment that follows the full caster spell level progression.

Some class abilities might be siphoning charges between items, right off enemies mid-fight, and enchanting "constant" effects on worn items (+1 ac, resistance to an element, etc).

[ezekielraiden]

The At-Will Mage. 3E called it Warlock. Soonest we would see it return would be 6E.

4e called it "Elementalist." It was a subclass of Sorcerer that specialized in a particular element. You had multiple-use-per-encounter Elemental Escalation, which specifically enhanced your at-will attacks. And the Elementalist specifically does not gain normal encounter or daily powers; only Utility powers come in E/D form. Essentially (heh) all of the Elementalist was built around juicing its at-will attacks, which meant it played amazingly well with....

psion and artificer need to be core. I'm not sure any others need to be. maybe warlord/marshal?

WARLORD.

Seriously. All through the playtest, they were pretty blunt about making Warlord characters a thing. But first they decided to make it a Fighter subclass, then they decided to put it into Specialties, then they dropped Specialties unceremoniously right at the VERY end and...never managed to recover it. The Warlord absolutely deserves to be its own class again, so it's neither shackled to the specific power structures of the Fighter nor relegated to "you must choose between actually getting better (ASI) or picking up the 3 feats you need to be a kinda-sorta-half Warlord."

Plus, it would be a huge olive branch to the non-negligible 4e fans who felt snubbed by 5e.

[Kane0]

Seconding Warlord

[togapika]

I'd like a martial class with powers ala Tome of Battle, but I know that would be a bit much to stick into a PHB. With 5e's design you'd probably do a single class with subclasses representing the different styles of initiators 3.5 had.

[Witty Username]

I want to see the Duskblade. I think the fighter blaster mage mix attempt from the eldritch knight has been a failure and that a true martial half int caster would better serve the concept.

[T.G. Oskar]

Agree with Warlord/Marshal, though the design paradigm for classes in 5e makes it pretty difficult.

Even if a revision came to mind, the design paradigm currently applying to 5e classes is pretty tight and, IMO, very well made. It makes certain previous classes (like the Swashbuckler, the Favored Soul, the Assassin, the Avenger, etc.) superfluous, because these classes per se were more akin to specific builds. Classes like Artificer and Psion(icist) are viable because you can create multiple subclasses from it. It makes creating new classes difficult, since you have to justify the idea of creating different variants of the same class that are nonetheless distinct from each other. I'd say their trial by fire was the Paladin, since it's often observed as a class that's very difficult to make distinct, and by far I think they've succeeded - note how the Conquest Paladin (a warrior that uses terror as a weapon) feels different from a Redemption Paladin (a protector that stays its weapon until needed), or an Ancients Paladin (a protector of nature), or a Glory Paladin (a glory-hound that seeks to prove its physical prowess). While they're all Paladins, they represent different ideals and potentially even different characters - I could see lord Soth pre-Death Knight as a Conquest Paladin, or even a reimagining of Robilar, whereas I could identify someone like Lancelot as a Glory Paladin, or perhaps Perseus. The four couldn't be any more distinct.

The Warlord/Marshal, however... It stands on the same edgy terrain as the Paladin - not too narrow to be a subclass, not to broad to be a class, but somewhere in between. I don't deny that you could make it a class and even make it work, but you'd have to be very careful to determine what features should be spread through the entire class and which features should be reserved for subclasses. As to how it could work? Well, consider that a Marshal isn't necessarily meant to be a military leader, but a leader, and you'll open up possibilities. The classical would be a military leader (your Warlord), which would probably focus on combat buffing. Alternatives would include a Tactician (which could even be the magical equivalent), a Tribal Chief (akin to a Barbarian), a Captain of the Guard (which would provide skills to direct investigations, for example). The key to make the class would involve a) defining what potential subclasses can exist and b) what each of these have in common that would be part of the main class features, rather than peculiar to one subclass. Once that's resolved...I figure it'd be a pretty awesome class by itself, as mechanically it'd provide a non-magical buffer which could assist the party inside or outside battle.

But as it goes? Definitely a Warlord/Marshal. I think it was a missed opportunity to make one. Right now, you either choose a Fighter subclass that's meant to reflect 3e's Warblade (Battlemaster), a poor Fighter subclass that's in dire need of a rework (Purple Dragon Knight - good grief, that subclass sucks!), refluff a Bard subclass (College of War) or get Inspiring Leader and just be whatever you want.

[Arkhios]

In general I despise speculating whether a 5.5/6.0 edition is within sight in the foreseeable future or not. Personally, I don't think so. If I'm wrong, I will stand corrected only after I see an official announcement.

THAT SAID, and I don't really care what they end up calling it, some kind of non-spellcaster who is equally capable of healing as a cleric or druid would be nice to have. Even in 5.0.

[MoiMagnus]

The At-Will Mage. 3E called it Warlock. Soonest we would see it return would be 6E.

I would more generally enjoy having move variations on resource management for each "theme".
So martial characters with a lot of daily resources (including healing) and spellcasters with mostly at-will powers.

Though I would not say I hope to see them in the Core. I'd honestly be more interested in them focussing more on the current core classes, in particular design of high level features.
(Like adding "high level subclasses" unlocked at level ~12, taking the role of prestige classes from older editions)

[ezekielraiden]

It makes certain previous classes (like the Swashbuckler, the Favored Soul, the Assassin, the Avenger, etc.) superfluous, because these classes per se were more akin to specific builds.

I'm very curious which class you feel captures the fluff and approximates the mechanics (since obviously they should not be identical) of the Avenger. I mean, I know they called the Oath of Vengeance "avengers," but other than the Channel Divinity effect giving advantage on attacks once per short rest, I really don't see it.

[Waazraath]

What I'd like to see:

- No psionic classes, but leaving the design space for them open so that with a psionic addition, they can shine. So no spells for telekinesis, telepathy and all the stuff associated with psionics, so that when psionics does get released in a supplement it is truely Something Different. Same for any other subsystem-concept they think they are going to develop!

- specialist casters: following the example of 3.5's beguiler, warmage, dread necromancer. Strong specializations, but without spells outside their niche, making every caster doing the same stuff anyways (fly, invisibility, shield, polymorph, wall of force, bla bla bla). Give me for instance elementalists that are great blasters with 1 or 2 elements but much weaker in other respects. Maybe keep the wizard (but maybe not) as 'spell generalist' but give that versatility a significant price.

- a shapeshifter class, with two subclasses / paths, one more social/rogue and one combat beast forms (e.g. warshaper / master of many forms inspired).

- a warlord class; I never played 4e, but people are so damn enthusiastic about the concept that I want to see it myself :)

- warlock returned to an invocation only class (so no spells / spell slots, only invocations and special abilities); it can add a different subclass for the dragon shaman afaic, that was a really nice addition that combined invocations with custom breath weapons with buffing aura's, blast fun concept.

- binder: a really nice, balanced and flavorful addition in one of the later 3.5 splats.

- a more complicated fighter; book of 9 swords is a bit much, but maybe pick one of those classes and have a few specializations, for people who like complicated mechanical builds with lots of options and like martial characters.

- I hope they are bold! Maybe ditch a few traditional classes (wizard, ranger); reduce spell levels from 9 to 7. Make barbarian a variant of the fighter, not because it would be best but just to try out something new.

[noob]

What I'd like to see:

- No psionic classes, but leaving the design space for them open so that with a psionic addition, they can shine. So no spells for telekinesis, telepathy and all the stuff associated with psionics, so that when psionics does get released in a supplement it is truely Something Different. Same for any other subsystem-concept they think they are going to develop!

- specialist casters: following the example of 3.5's beguiler, warmage, dread necromancer. Strong specializations, but without spells outside their niche, making every caster doing the same stuff anyways (fly, invisibility, shield, polymorph, wall of force, bla bla bla). Give me for instance elementalists that are great blasters with 1 or 2 elements but much weaker in other respects. Maybe keep the wizard (but maybe not) as 'spell generalist' but give that versatility a significant price.

- a shapeshifter class, with two subclasses / paths, one more social/rogue and one combat beast forms (e.g. warshaper / master of many forms inspired).

- a warlord class; I never played 4e, but people are so damn enthusiastic about the concept that I want to see it myself :)

- warlock returned to an invocation only class (so no spells / spell slots, only invocations and special abilities); it can add a different subclass for the dragon shaman afaic, that was a really nice addition that combined invocations with custom breath weapons with buffing aura's, blast fun concept.

- binder: a really nice, balanced and flavorful addition in one of the later 3.5 splats.

- a more complicated fighter; book of 9 swords is a bit much, but maybe pick one of those classes and have a few specializations, for people who like complicated mechanical builds with lots of options and like martial characters.

- I hope they are bold! Maybe ditch a few traditional classes (wizard, ranger); reduce spell levels from 9 to 7. Make barbarian a variant of the fighter, not because it would be best but just to try out something new.

You should realise that the op seventh level spells and above are often bbeg plot tools granted to players for symmetry sake in previous editions that they brought back in 5e due to their "revert everything done to fix dnd in 4e" policy.
Simulacrum is not meant to make a copy of your strongest friend: it is supposed to be used by a bbeg to be at two places or for replacing the local leader.
Wish is not supposed to be slung around: it is supposed to be granted by bbegs as a corruption tool or reward to loyal servitors.
Mirage arcana and guard and wards are super powerful too despite being below that level because again they are bbeg tools means to secure their fortress given to the players just because some of the previous editions did.
Teleport circle is a setting building tool and was granted to players again due to the philosophy of previous editions.
Meteor swarm is supposed to just be here to allow the bbeg to commit vast amounts of murder in a short span of time(non discriminating and huge aoe) and was granted to the players too for no good reason.
True polymorph is supposed to be used by the crazy mage playing with life in unnatural ways but again it was granted to players.
Resurrect true is only here to save the time going back to high levels and so is not necessarily as much a "meant for bbeg" tool.
The bbeg tool spells could still exist but could be moved to the monster manuals with a "not for players" mention for example.

Also it is not new at all to make barbarians be a fighter subclass they already were a variant of fighter in ad&d.
Ranger was also a fighter subclass in ad&d.
And ditching ranger would be just a step toward basic edition which did not have rangers.
Maybe you should try older editions instead of looking forward to 6e?

[MrStabby]

I loved the UA version of the rune Knight and think there is enough theme and enough material to make into its own class. Runes, hieroglyphs or any other mystic feeling writing... the power of words woven into a non-spellcasting chassis that tie back to different histories and cultures. I felt sticking it on the fighter squeezed how much could be explored; making it its own class could help here.

Something I think should be core is the martial artist capable of grapples and throws; that said a bit of rework on the monk to let you chose between a grappling path and a striking path would do just as well.


I would love to see a priest - a divine focussed caster without the martial trappings of the cleric class (d6 HP, no armour or shield proficiencies but with access to wizard power level divine spells rather than cleric power level spells). I was thinking you could get some of this just by releasing more cleric spells and taking divine soul, but that would then overpower both of those other options so a seperate class might be better.

And an intelligence based martial character that uses their knowledge of their enemies and their weaknesses to overcome them. That said, I would be happy enough for this function to be wrapped up as a secondary theme in any Rune Knight class.

[Bosh]

Eh, if anything I'd like to see the class list pared down a bit in core. Some classes like bard and ranger seem to running more on tradition and inertia than on any real distinct niche.

Up the amount of power that each fighter sub-class hands out (especially out of combat stuff) so that fighter can handle more niches and so that each fighter sub-class has a bit more oomph.

For casters, a lot of the casters (except warlocks) in 5e are pretty samey as they all have the same basic system that'd be called spontaneous casting in 3.5ed. "I have metamagic" isn't really enough of a niche for a whole class. So break things down to:
-Old school Vancian (wizard).
-5e-style casting (cleric).
-At-will casting with some a budget of meta-magic style boosts (sorcerer/warlock).

So that leaves you with the following classes:
-Fighter.
-Rogue.
-Wizard.
-Cleric.
-Sorcerer.

Then have the other classes be sub-classes (as a lot of them were originally) and give each sub-class enough oomph to really distinguish them. Especially with casters you don't need a huge profileration of classes if they all use the same basic casting mechanic.

With that pared down a bit give races more boosts that kick in at higher levels or scale with level to make the races more distinct.

[MoiMagnus]

Some classes like bard and ranger seem to running more on tradition and inertia than on any real distinct niche.

IMO the Bard is to spellcasters what the Rogue is to martial.
Both are "what if we took the fighter/wizard and give them more skills and RP-related abilities".
In the same way that you can "emulate" a bard through the other spellcasting classes by making a Bard-like spell selection, you can "emulate" the Rogue by making a Dex-based Fighter.

If anything, the Bard stand out to me much more than the Sorcerer does, and if I had to choose, I'd consider Sorcerer to be the one slowly running out of the inertia it has from tradition.

So that leaves you with the following classes:
-Fighter.
-Rogue.
-Wizard.
-Cleric.
-Sorcerer.

In other words, you're suggesting to only keep one class per ability score (ignoring constitution), and to reinforce how different ability score for spellcaster mean different ways of doing magic (Int -> Vancian, etc).

[heavyfuel]

Honestly, none.

I don't think it's the Core Book's job to present classes other than the "traditional" ones.

Yeah, I would love if 5e had given us a Maneuver Class, an at-will spellcaster, and the Duskblade. These are the 3 classes I wanted more than anything in 5e. But I don't think they should've been in the PHB.

In an ideal world, we'd get everything in a single (massive) book, but when you have to come up with rules for literally everything, it's understandable that unusual character classes get left behind.

[Dienekes]

Warlord, without question.

I am also of the opinion that there really only needs to be one dirt simple martial class. So if Barbarians and Fighters are both in 5.5/6e make one of the two of them more like a ToB class. Please. Battlemaster Fighter is just boring Warblade.

There also probably should be a dirt simple caster as well. Personally kinda think it should be Sorcerer considering I still don't think they've given the class a good identity yet outside of maybe 4e.

[KorvinStarmast]

- No psionic classes, but leaving the design space for them open so that with a psionic addition, they can shine. So no spells for telekinesis, telepathy and all the stuff associated with psionics, so that when psionics does get released in a supplement it is truely Something Different.

That makes to me no sense, since spells like that have been available to PCs since the game was first invented. The psionicist was an add-on, and as the AD&D 2e treatment of it expressed quite nicely - Do we need a third system of magic? No. - situation still fits. That said, I would like the option to have psionics folded in so that it fits the general structure of the game so far.

- specialist casters: following the example of 3.5's beguiler, warmage, dread necromancer.

No thanks. This can be done via spell selection already.

- a shapeshifter class, with two subclasses / paths, one more social/rogue and one combat beast forms (e.g. warshaper / master of many forms inspired).

We already have wild shape for druids.

- a warlord class; I never played 4e, but people are so damn enthusiastic about the concept that I want to see it myself :)

I'd like to see it in a UA and a play test, but I see no reason not to make that a Fighter Sub Class.

- warlock returned to an invocation only class (so no spells / spell slots, only invocations and special abilities);

What, no cantrips?

- binder: a really nice, balanced and flavorful addition in one of the later 3.5 splats.

Over specialization strikes me as the role for various NPCs. The PC in level 1-20 D&D progression needs to overcome a wide variety of challenges. Particularly in a small party, specialization can be a detriment.

- a more complicated fighter;

You can do that with sub classes, and the battlemaster is already a step in that direction.

Maybe ditch a few traditional classes (wizard, ranger)

No and yes.
Wizard is core, dump sorcerer.
Ranger? Make it a fighter sub class again and I'm good with it.
And you could dump druid and make it a cleric sub class again without bothering me in the least.

I would love to see a priest - a divine focussed caster without the martial trappings of the cleric class (d6 HP, no armour or shield proficiencies but with access to wizard power level divine spells rather than cleric power level spells).

Arcana Cleric was a nice step in that direction.

And an intelligence based martial character that uses their knowledge of their enemies and their weaknesses to overcome them.

That's called metagaming/reading the books. You don't need a class to do that. (Were you thinking about something like The Witcher?)

If anything, the Bard stand out to me much more than the Sorcerer does, and if I had to choose, I'd consider Sorcerer to be the one slowly running out of the inertia it has from tradition.

Dump the Sorcerer. It was a bad idea to begin with when introduced in 3e. (In My Opinion)

My last suggestion for the next edition would be to explicitly prohibit any arcane spell casting while wearing heavy armor - and to make heavy armor by default offer a native DR based on proficiency. (Narrative wise, some of the swords and sorcery genre use the 'degaussing effect' (Maybe it was from Poul Anderson) of iron/heavy metals on magical stuff ....) That means that if you are an Eldritch Knight or some kind of gish you need to make a choice between spell casting and the protection of heavy armor. I think that heavy armor is OK at very low levels, but requiring a feat to get the DR from heavy armor I'd like to see scrubbed again and made native to that armor type.

Choices like that, however need to be handled with care to avoid the dreaded trap options ...

All said and done, I'd like to see the class list reduced, sub classes expanded perhaps, and the artificer done away with completely. You can have it in Eberron, but for my money it needs to be a sub class of wizard.

[Xervous]

Fighters, rogues, rangers, barbs etc that can play the same game as wizards and clerics past level X. X being the point at which What-Do concepts like “hit with sword” are far too narrow a specialty to be relevant to a majority of potential plot stubs. And preferably accomplish this NOT by cutting off the top end of casters and other fantastical details to stretch the 1-10 progression out to 1-20. There shouldn’t be classes that are by default unable to participate without GM spoon feeding. It would be nice and honest to see subclasses capped at level 10, with a separate set of subclasses (Perhaps not explicitly divided up by class) spanning 11-20 that illustrate what kinds of concepts are expected and relevant at those levels.

They’ve seen people play 1-10 plenty, might as well acknowledge and design around the divide.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fighters, rogues, rangers, barbs etc that can play the same game as wizards and clerics past level X. X being the point at which What-Do concepts like “hit with sword” are far too narrow a specialty to be relevant to a majority of potential plot stubs. And preferably accomplish this NOT by cutting off the top end of casters and other fantastical details to stretch the 1-10 progression out to 1-20. There shouldn’t be classes that are by default unable to participate without GM spoon feeding. It would be nice and honest to see subclasses capped at level 10, with a separate set of subclasses (Perhaps not explicitly divided up by class) spanning 11-20 that illustrate what kinds of concepts are expected and relevant at those levels.

They’ve seen people play 1-10 plenty, might as well acknowledge and design around the divide.

One of the martials that handles the second half pretty well is Paladin. Ranger has some odd features above 11. Capstone underwhelming.

[noob]

Maybe dnd 6e would remove levels and remove classes for making the whole design less convoluted?

[KorvinStarmast]

Maybe dnd 6e would remove levels and remove classes for making the whole design less convoluted?

I think we may have discussed this before.

Doing that actually makes the min-maxing worse, not better, to where a single 'best build' shows up.

I don't think that this game is interested in doing that.

On a related note: on the CRPG front, Blizzard/Blizzard North/Condor ran into that design issue with the original Diablo game. They were initially thinking of having a character simply show up and there be no class template and you build as you level up; as it worked out they ended up going with three classes and it was extremely well received. The build variety for that game was fairly expansive once you got into tinkering, though I seem to recall a "god mode" Sorcerer Tank build that was insanely strong. Been ages since I played that.

I recall that the original Traveller game didn't start with classes per se, but as you went through chargen you did select various professional features ... not sure if that's a good example of what you may be driving at, since Traveller didn't have leveling.

[noob]

I think we may have discussed this before.

Doing that actually makes the min-maxing worse, not better, to where a single 'best build' shows up.

I don't think that this game is interested in doing that.

On a related note: on the CRPG front, Blizzard/Blizzard North/Condor ran into that design issue with the original Diablo game. They were initially thinking of having a character simply show up and there be no class template and you build as you level up; as it worked out they ended up going with three classes and it was extremely well received. The build variety for that game was fairly expansive once you got into tinkering, though I seem to recall a "god mode" Sorcerer Tank build that was insanely strong. Been ages since I played that.

I recall that the original Traveller game didn't start with classes per se, but as you went through chargen you did select various professional features ... not sure if that's a good example of what you may be driving at, since Traveller didn't have leveling.

You do not have a single best build because the abilities have unrelated effects.
For example there is only one ability for participating in fights and only one ability for lying to people and so on.(and no umbrella ability for spells because it is nonsense to do that: you would get spell like abilities only for stuff that have no overlap with the rest so no mind control nor spells that can be used in a fight like grease and haste and so on(pruning of the spell concept to remove all that))
Even in gurps there is not a single best build because there is a ridiculous variety of stuff to do so you can not arbitrarily say "this build is better than all the others" (unless you get some broken content like ritual casting but that is a problem with gurps trying to do everything and you just have to not play with the books adding those)

[TigerT20]

Ranger could definitely be kept if they made in an actual exploration-based class rather than a fighter-druid-rogue who gets a hall pass when in a certain environment.

I feel that tactical fighter/warlord/intelligent warrior could definitely be a rebuild of the fighter chassis - give them martial invocations maybe, or some kind of other perks (like what they had in 5e's playtest stage).

Now, I can think of a lot of subclasses but ideas for a whole new class - and a core one for that matter - evades me.

Runes could definitely be delved into. Maybe make it a d8 class with two core subclasses - one that goes more Rune Knight, and another that's more caster-like (a Rune Scribe? Rune Scholar?) and have extra ones with more varying themes - giants, name magic, even golems?

[Eldariel]

Warlord is by far the worst and most egregious omission.

[Morty]

I think we may have discussed this before.

Doing that actually makes the min-maxing worse, not better, to where a single 'best build' shows up.

I don't think that this game is interested in doing that.

On a related note: on the CRPG front, Blizzard/Blizzard North/Condor ran into that design issue with the original Diablo game. They were initially thinking of having a character simply show up and there be no class template and you build as you level up; as it worked out they ended up going with three classes and it was extremely well received. The build variety for that game was fairly expansive once you got into tinkering, though I seem to recall a "god mode" Sorcerer Tank build that was insanely strong. Been ages since I played that.

I recall that the original Traveller game didn't start with classes per se, but as you went through chargen you did select various professional features ... not sure if that's a good example of what you may be driving at, since Traveller didn't have leveling.

There are many games without classes - indeed, that's most of them. And D&D is just about the only one left that has levels. Most of those are much better balanced than D&D and "one true builds" aren't a universal problem by any stretch. D&D abandoning classes and levels isn't something that will ever happen, but the claim that it leads to min-maxing is false.

Otherwise I agree that the D&D class list has to be rebuilt from scratch, not added to - but that is also not something that will ever happen. For some reason I can't understand, the 3E list + warlock or alchemist became an inviolate tradition that can't be touched.

[CheddarChampion]

I don't know if this is 'missing' per se, but I think an Interrogator class could be good. Kinda like a fighter, but with class features based on mental ability scores, extra skills, and expertise instead of things like fighting style, action surge, second wind, extra feats...

You could have subclasses of: detective, inquisitor, torturer, and witch hunter.

Detective would focus on using insight, investigation, and perception both in social situations and in combat.

Inquisitor would grant 1/3 cleric spellcasting.

Torturer would focus on inflicting pain and fear to debilitate enemies and get people to answer your questions. Bad for your reputation, of course, and has a chance of backfiring.

Witch Hunter would focus on seeing through/resisting tricks like charm, fear, and invisibility; weakening or banishing supernatural/extraplanar monsters; ending ongoing spells.