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

[Catullus64]

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

I'm inclined to disagree on the point of Artificer and Psionic classes. Those classes are ultimately tied to flavors of fantasy that are much narrower than the game's assumed default characteristics of traditional high fantasy. Having them as supplementary material reinforces that these are classes which are intended for specific worlds and campaigns.

Putting them in a Core book significantly shifts the needle of the game's "average" setting. Doing so would only make sense if your objective was to make the assumed settings of the game more high-magic and sci-fi influenced, which would be a mistake in my opinion. To make a slightly hyperbolic analogy, it would be like releasing a version of the game with only one spellcaster class in order to promote sword-and-sorcery and other low fantasy.

I'm also of the opinion that the Warlord only really made much sense in 4e (to be clear, it worked amazingly there), with its emphasis on movement, positioning, marking, and that kind of stuff. I think it was one of the best iterations of the fundamentally flawed "I want to play a spellcaster except fluffed to not cast any spells" class ethos that people seem really keen on.

[KorvinStarmast]

the game's assumed default characteristics of traditional high fantasy.

Swords and Sorcery is the basic genre, or perhaps, it is another basic genre that is core to the general in game fiction. That genre is related to but isn't high fantasy.

Having them as supplementary material reinforces that these are classes which are intended for specific worlds and campaigns.

I agree.

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.

We have an accord. There's an OSR kind of guy who goes by the handle of Delta who has rescrubbed / redone some of the Original Dungeons and Dragons stuff (three books), cleaned up some of the math, and reduced the class list. He, of all things, got rid of clerics and put all magic in the hands of magic users. When I first pondered that I shook my head a little bit, but as I've thumbed through a few of his supplements/pubs, it makes a certain kind of sense to me now.
He apparently is still running games in that system, and has a good sized player base. (Not sure how COVID has impacted that, I suspect substantially). I'd love to be able to play at his table but there are a few thousand miles between where he lives and where I do.

Further agreement with you that trimming the number of classes can certainly be done successfully and it still be D&D.

[Amnestic]

I'm inclined to disagree on the point of Artificer and Psionic classes. Those classes are ultimately tied to flavors of fantasy that are much narrower than the game's assumed default characteristics of traditional high fantasy. Having them as supplementary material reinforces that these are classes which are intended for specific worlds and campaigns.

The alchemist fits into any setting and the artillerist could be slotted in by just renaming the turrets to...idk, 'minor ioun stones' or something.

Battlesmith and armourer less easy perhaps but hardly impossible, and the general fluff of '(magic) item crafter' fits in most settings pretty easily.

[da newt]

Just my opinion, but I think the classes/subclasses are getting bloated and could use a bit of a trim/simplification.

I'd rather see a focus on balancing the weapon vs magic power at different levels.

I'd also like the ability to MC / pick and choose from the list of options kept very simple and easy so that an individual could create their own niche/character. For example - I'd rather delete the Ranger class and make it easy for someone to build a fighter/nature caster.

[Dienekes]

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.

Eh, I don't really get this line of reasoning for the Warlord specifically.

Now don't get me wrong, there are a lot of classes that really could be just a subclass of another. Sorcerer has no real mechanical identity from the Wizard. Barbarians are just one way to play a Fighter. And so on.

But I don't really see how the Warlord can be done well with the Fighter without simply changing the Fighter to the Warlord completely.

In 5e the Fighter has two playstyles. Go up in melee and whack things with a melee weapon, or hang in the back and shoot people with a ranged weapon. That's it. That's what they do. Now they can refine those strategies somewhat, whack with a long weapon to give some control to them. Or whack them with two smaller weapons if you want a few more whacks per turn. But at their essence all their abilities are based around providing means for getting them to whack people.

Which would work great if we wanted to make Barbarians a Fighter subclass. At level 1, pick if you want Armor Proficiency and a Fighting Style or Rage and Unarmored Combat. Easy. From that point on, they pretty much do the same thing.

But the Warlord essentially had three available playstyles: Whack people in melee and provide on-hit effects, the close-ranged buffer, or the action provider. Of which only one would ever really work within the Fighter template of abilities. Otherwise every action you're taking to provide buffs means you're not using all the the generic fighter abilities to make you hit things better that a Barbarian might use. And if you're giving away actions like the third playstyle then you're definitely not using those actions yourself.

Honestly, from a mechanical outcome perspective Warlord has more in common with the Bard or Cleric than it does with the Fighter. With the exception of the aforementioned whack things and give on-hit effects version. That's really the only one that slots well into the Fighter. But if that's the only version of the Warlord done as a subclass, then I really don't think they've successfully implemented the Warlord.

[Morty]

We have an accord. There's an OSR kind of guy who goes by the handle of Delta who has rescrubbed / redone some of the Original Dungeons and Dragons stuff (three books), cleaned up some of the math, and reduced the class list. He, of all things, got rid of clerics and put all magic in the hands of magic users. When I first pondered that I shook my head a little bit, but as I've thumbed through a few of his supplements/pubs, it makes a certain kind of sense to me now.
He apparently is still running games in that system, and has a good sized player base. (Not sure how COVID has impacted that, I suspect substantially). I'd love to be able to play at his table but there are a few thousand miles between where he lives and where I do.

Further agreement with you that trimming the number of classes can certainly be done successfully and it still be D&D.

Trimming down, maybe. Trimming them down to what they used to be in old editions, not really. I don't think fighters, thieves and wizards make for a good basis of anything.

[Xervous]

As funny as it was, I don’t know if the game needs to feature Six Handing a ranger again. (The joke being warlords just swing other party members at things, so 3x warlords would take turns swinging a ranger). Lazylord was frankly too good for how little direct involvement it had in play. So you’d be playing support and your big move is “oh hey someone else take another turn”. Amazing, powerful, but I doubt people would appreciate it being a role they are forced into a la AD&D cleric.

[Dienekes]

As funny as it was, I don’t know if the game needs to feature Six Handing a ranger again. (The joke being warlords just swing other party members at things, so 3x warlords would take turns swinging a ranger). Lazylord was frankly too good for how little direct involvement it had in play. So you’d be playing support and your big move is “oh hey someone else take another turn”. Amazing, powerful, but I doubt people would appreciate it being a role they are forced into a la AD&D cleric.

I think the counterargument there would be, if we abandoned every concept because WotC got the balance wrong we'd be playing a very empty game.

Yeah Lazylord chaining was a problem, but I don't think it was an insurmountable one. And honestly, I don't think it even really compares to some other pretty broken combinations in D&D history.

[Xervous]

I think the counterargument there would be, if we abandoned every concept because WotC got the balance wrong we'd be playing a very empty game.

Yeah Lazylord chaining was a problem, but I don't think it was an insurmountable one. And honestly, I don't think it even really compares to some other pretty broken combinations in D&D history.

The point is not so much that the balance is off, but that it’s a thoroughly disengaged play style that people only opted for because of the numeric superiority. Were it a middling or low performer I don’t picture many people flipping to the page all “gee whiz, I always wanted to pass my turn and watch the Barbarian attack more”

[MrStabby]

Arcana Cleric was a nice step in that direction.

Not sure: still has medium armour, still has proficiency in shields, still has cleric HP, and the domain spells added don't raise the spell quality (I don't really rate the domain spells for the arcana cleric).

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

I never read those books, so not really sure if this is a match at all.

I was kind of thinking a bit like Abraham Van Helsing from Dracula - his contribution is knowing how to kill vampires, knowing how to keep them out and ward them off. He is a scholar rather than a caster. Obviously more diverse in knowledge, knowing the weaknesses of multiple different enemies rather than just vampires or even undead. Kind of like a ranger with favoured enemies but with different effects on each type.

[Telwar]

I'd love a warlord class.

I'd love for psionics to be a core option, because I'd rather have an expansive view of fantasy rather than a narrow one. Also, this would make sure the design sat in core and could avoid the problem of f perceived power creep (whether real or not).

I'd love a variety of resources for classes, so you could have the At-Will Mage and the "fighter with 'spell' slots."

The possible problem is that this is going to take an absolute ton of space, especially if we have wordy spell descriptions again.

[Salmon343]

Not sure: still has medium armour, still has proficiency in shields, still has cleric HP, and the domain spells added don't raise the spell quality (I don't really rate the domain spells for the arcana cleric).



I never read those books, so not really sure if this is a match at all.

I was kind of thinking a bit like Abraham Van Helsing from Dracula - his contribution is knowing how to kill vampires, knowing how to keep them out and ward them off. He is a scholar rather than a caster. Obviously more diverse in knowledge, knowing the weaknesses of multiple different enemies rather than just vampires or even undead. Kind of like a ranger with favoured enemies but with different effects on each type.

There's a 3.5 class called the Archivist - not played it yet, but they look quite interesting. The broken part about them is that they're divine spellcasters, who with enough finagling can get access to any spell in the game. The less broken part and the part I find most interesting is a feature called Dark Knowledge, which allows them to make knowledge checks on creatures in order to gain buffs or use special abilities against them for the rest of the encounter. E.g, Tactics allows them to gain a bonus to attack rolls, and Puissance allows them to gain a bonus to saving throws against them, while Dread Secret allows you to dazzle, daze or even stun them for a round.

I feel like the Dark Knowledge bit would work well for what you're thinking of, if it's expanded to have more uses per day, and a wider array of features. The buffs were party wide too, so it really leans in to the flavour of finding out the weak point of the monster. 5e monsters typically aren't really built for having weak points, so this method of generic buffs and status effects would work well for representing the concept of fighting tactically. The Monster Slayer Ranger subclass is an alternative example of loosely what you're looking for, on a half-caster chassis.

[Amechra]

The point is not so much that the balance is off, but that it’s a thoroughly disengaged play style that people only opted for because of the numeric superiority. Were it a middling or low performer I don’t picture many people flipping to the page all “gee whiz, I always wanted to pass my turn and watch the Barbarian attack more”

I mean, I'd be down for that. I find combat to be somewhat dull (not just in D&D - I'm not really an action person in general), so the ability to effectively skip combat while simultaneously contributing to the party's success sounds pretty cool to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not sure: still has medium armour, still has proficiency in shields, still has cleric HP, and the domain spells added don't raise the spell quality (I don't really rate the domain spells for the arcana cleric).

I didn't say "an exact fit" but "a step in that direction." I've played a Monk 1 /Cleric X MC (also druid) in a few one shots and they can fit very well into your idea.

I never read those books, so not really sure if this is a match at all.

The joke I attempted failed to land. So it goes.

I was kind of thinking a bit like Abraham Van Helsing from Dracula - his contribution is knowing how to kill vampires, knowing how to keep them out and ward them off. He is a scholar rather than a caster. Obviously more diverse in knowledge, knowing the weaknesses of multiple different enemies rather than just vampires or even undead. Kind of like a ranger with favoured enemies but with different effects on each type.

That's good for one adventure arc, and of course awesome for Curse of Strahd. In D&D, you face a wide variety of monsters, hence the Witcher reference. In the short stories and in the novels, Geralt is very much "I know monsters as well as or better than anyone" such that he is uniquely qualified to go around as monster exterminator in locales all over the fictional world. I think that template would fit your idea pretty well.

[ezekielraiden]

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.

It's very simple: There's not enough room.

The Fighter chassis is too focused, on its own, to achieve the desired end. You automatically get the best armor, the most attacks, the most actions. These things are fine as they are, but they conflict with what a balanced Warlord class would imply. In order to work as a proper Warlord, you have to be able to support others to a degree comparable to a Cleric. Not identical--they should be different, just as they were different in 4e--but comparable. A Fighter subclass that was as ally-supportive as a 5e Cleric or Bard would be unequivocally overpowered. And, as we've seen with the Battlemaster and PDK, a Fighter subclass that focuses on support will never be sufficient at supporting others to fulfill that role.

In order to make something that is satisfyingly support-focused yet still balanced, the Warlord cannot be shackled to the Fighter's design elements.

The point is not so much that the balance is off, but that it’s a thoroughly disengaged play style that people only opted for because of the numeric superiority. Were it a middling or low performer I don’t picture many people flipping to the page all “gee whiz, I always wanted to pass my turn and watch the Barbarian attack more”

Okay so, three things.

Firstly? I really gorram wish the Lazylord weren't the place EVERY critic IMMEDIATELY leaps to. It wasn't something the 4e designers ever set out to make. You had to stitch together bits and pieces that were only all available after Martial Power 2, meaning at least two full years after 4e launched. The Lazylord was one SMALL part of the Warlord' s existence, and should not be held up as what ALL of them were like. Though the option did have its fans, the popularity of the class overall has NOTHING to do with the lazy build. Especially since, as stated, for a significant portion of 4e's run it wasn't even POSSIBLE to be a lazy Warlord!

Secondly, your disparagement actually does you a disservice. The lazy build actually had a number of genuinely neat roleplay concepts that people came up with. Whether these were after the fact justifications or "oh man finally I can do X" is beyond our ability to determine (though I think it's fair to say that both almost certainly happened). Two examples I personally thought were really good were the "professor" and "princess" (implicitly of white-gloved-mouse style) ideas. The Professor is a mild-mannered, unassuming but devilishly clever guy. Can't hit very hard, he's getting on in his years. But he's excellent at seeing the weaknesses in defenses, and at coaching others to exploit them, and the party relies on him to always have a plan or three. (Mechanically, an Int/Wis focused warlord, presumably Tactical.) The Princess, meanwhile, is charismatic and inspiring, able to find the best in everyone (but especially her friends) and push them to higher heights than they'd ever achieve normally. She won't be a Lady of War, but relies on her retainers and allies for protection, and in return she assures them victory. (Bravura Warlord, Int/Cha focus, lots of social skills on top of support abilities.)

Third, your disparagement isn't even all that accurate to what a Lazylord build does. Yes, they don't do much damage personally and instead work through allies. But positioning, setting up flanking (for Combat Advantage), keeping tactical options open/ready, and tracking everyone else's powers and resources were all equally important parts of playing one. You were only 'lazy' in the sense of not personally making many attack rolls; an actually effective 'lazy' Warlord definitely could not be played lazily. If anything, it was possibly the most demanding of all warlord types to play, because you were always at risk of not having anything to contribute! Now, some of the above stuff isn't going to matter as much in 5e, where positioning is often less of a concern and movement can happen before, during, and after attacking. But that doesn't mean that even if we DID make a 5e Lazy Warlord option, it would inherently always boil down to "repeatedly make the Barbarian attack on your behalf, and otherwise check out of the game."

And as a final note...keep in mind, Warlord-type characters really do exist in fiction. Sokka is a Warlord. He has some skill at arms (he's not a lazy Warlord), but his greatest skills are his observational and tactical acumen. He may be a terribly silly person, but no one questions his genius as a commander of forces. Not even his own father.

[Xervous]

Okay so, three things.

At what point have I directly classified all warlords as being lazy?

Shared point on the RP concepts, however again note it is an RP concept driving the choice and not a matter of optimization. I will note it is a niche pairing of concept and implementation that is more likely to prove sour when it stands up as the front runner, which is where my critique was focused.

Brushing aside the matter of higher optimization and tactics, the baseline functionality was exceptional from the start at PHB where the strike+rider you granted was on par with encounter powers.

I’m simply advocating that lazylords not start with such a high baseline relative to other facets of the class and other classes that serve similar functions. Flex OPfu and make an amazing one? Sure. But have an above average turn passer as what new players first see and comprehend before they get to the intricacies of its more limited resources? That is what I am cautioning against.

[Waazraath]

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.

I don't really care that these spells were available 50 or something years ago. That's a long time. For me its pretty obvious that if you want psionics, it is better if it has its own niche. 3.5 did it quite nice, with a focus on mind conctrol, telekinis, telepathy, the manipulation of time, ectoplasm... addint a distinctive esthetic, it really was something different. If you don't want it to be something different, it's redundant. The most boring psionics in 3.5 were 'psionic dispel magic', 'psionic invisibility', etc - just the spell with 'psionic' written before it. If you don't want an extra (third? not second? but nvm) system of magic, fine, but if it is there, it

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

No. But we had this type of discussion already once, here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...1&postcount=19 Most relevant part of my argument there was: So no, I don't want more specializations, my problem is that 'specialization' has very little impact. Both the enchanter and necromancer and evoker all will know invisibility, counterspell, and polymorph (defining spells for illusion, abujuration and transmutation schools). The subclass offers some minor abilities, and aren't defining. This is maybe even worse for the classes that only know a few spells, because with very few spells known, few players choose to pick that flavorfull level 3 spell that goes well with the theme if that means they don't get to known Fireball or Fly.

To eleborate: there is in 5e hardly any incentive for casters than to do anything then spread your spells to cover as much options as possible. You can make a 'fire mage' but it'll be not much better than any other caster who knows a few fire spells, and when needed, the fire mage can just as well fly, dominate somebody, cast a cone of cold, or animate some skeletons. For wizards, with all their spells known and no longer opposing schools, there isn't any options not to know as much different spells as possible. This damages diversity.

We already have wild shape for druids.

For me: inadequate, and bad design. The latter because stacking wildshape on a spellscaster class is double; double a compex ability (respectively spellcasting and wildshape) that can function to solve a lot of different situations. A wildshape-like ability would work much better on a non-spellcaster chasis imo. And the former, by making the combat form only a specific type of druid limits it a lot conceptually - druid is very niche. I'd rather see a broad shapechanger type that could also change in humanoids (for social interaction) and different combat forms, but without the casting.

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.

Agreed, but if the UA would be succesful, of course there would be a reason.

What, no cantrips?

Yeah, they can keep cantrips, but no reason to replace those with low level invocations as well. As long as you have a simple caster, for people who want to play a caster without having to read half an extra book with rules (the 'spells' section).

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.

I miss the point what this has to do with the Binder class I think? It wasn't a specialized class at all, but a broad generalist that could change its party role on a daily basis, being competent in this role but not the best (and with weird unusual combinations at the later levels, giving it a special charm).

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

Agreed. I once wrote an entire thread about that: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-in-5e-already But 1) for quite some folks what we have isn't enough, and 2) you could go quite a bit more complex than battlemaster.


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. [/quote]

Or dump wizard, and replace it with a necromancer, beguiler (illusion/charm), and evoker. But these were just examples, I hope they just take the liberty to toy around a bit. Maybe ranger as rogues subclass, and get rid of the discussion 'if it should have spells'. Remove bards, or make them a rogue subclass. Etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

For me its pretty obvious that if you want psionics, it is better if it has its own niche. 3.5 did it quite nice, with a focus on mind conctrol, telekinis, telepathy, the manipulation of time, ectoplasm... addint a distinctive esthetic, it really was something different.

Having a well built niche is right, I think. I didn't stay with 3.x long enough (stopped D&Ding for a while thanks to RL and raising a family and other things) to explore how that edition handled psionics. Have heard good things about the last splat they put out on that. Did 4e do a good job with psionics? Never 4e'd so have no point of reference.

Your specialization stance looks to me like we are not going to come to an accord on that.

This damages diversity.

No, it doesn't. If a six person party you'll get a different benefit from spcializations than in a three person party. Now, for one-shots, I think your idea that specialization is beneficial has merit - and not a small amount.

For me: inadequate, and bad design.

For me, good design as it does not pigeon hole the player. You can specialize if you want to but you are not forced into it.

Yeah, they can keep cantrips, but no reason to replace those with low level invocations as well. As long as you have a simple caster, for people who want to play a caster without having to read half an extra book with rules (the 'spells' section).

Hmm, I like where you are going with this thought. I have a campaign idea for next year that restricts classes available a great deal: only arcane caster is Warlock. Not sure if the group wants to do that, I need to work on my sales pitch.

Or dump wizard, and replace it with a necromancer, beguiler (illusion/charm), and evoker.

You can make any of those by using the sub class structure. I think you might want to tweak how subclasses work, in that (I hope I am understanding you correctly) you'd like that choice made at second level be more impactful that it feels to you now. Did I catch your drift?

[Waazraath]

Having a well built niche is right, I think. I didn't stay with 3.x long enough (stopped D&Ding for a while thanks to RL and raising a family and other things) to explore how that edition handled psionics. Have heard good things about the last splat they put out on that. Did 4e do a good job with psionics? Never 4e'd so have no point of reference.

Don't know... I skipped 4e completely. You for very good reasons, me for just not liking it enough compared to the earlier version :) As for 3.5, the first splat (expanded psionic handbook - XPH) was very good, though totally overpowered in some ways (not ulike how magic was overpowered in that edition); the second splat (complete psionic) was a bit of a mess; some heavily underpowered classes, some nonsencical fluff (psionic divine-like magic with psionic gods), stupidly overpowered combination for the earliest levels... meh. The good thing about XPH was that it had its own esthetic, in art work, materials, monsters, races, it was a really coherent package. But it had all the flaws the rest of the edition had.

No, it doesn't.

Could you elaborate? Cause I when I look at casters in 5e, every caster tries to have x) a teleport spell x) a spell to fly with x) a spell to do area damage x) something to counter or dispel magic x) and then some. And since most categories have 1 or 2 obvious 'best' spells, a level 7 draconic sorcerer looks not that much different than simalar level wizard illusionist, land druid or GOO warlock (in spells known/prepared for the day). They all try to cover all bases, which leads to a very similiar spell selection in practice.

If a six person party you'll get a different benefit from spcializations than in a three person party. Now, for one-shots, I think your idea that specialization is beneficial has merit - and not a small amount.

I don't follow you here I think.

For me, good design as it does not pigeon hole the player. You can specialize if you want to but you are not forced into it.

But this pigeon holing is exactly my problem when shapeshifting is tied exclusively to the moon druid. I can't play a Beorn, or a warrior decended from lycantrope, or a rogue scoundrel using his shapechanging to avoid traps and deceive others. I'm tied to this full caster relying on 'magic from nature'. I do think there is room for a 'generalist' caster - but in 5e, I feel almost every caster is a generalist caster, and specializing in something doesn't make you much better than any other random caster with a few spells in that direction.

Hmm, I like where you are going with this thought. I have a campaign idea for next year that restricts classes available a great deal: only arcane caster is Warlock. Not sure if the group wants to do that, I need to work on my sales pitch.

For me, seems like a cool idea. I experimented with much more restricted schools. In (I think) early 3e ran a campaign where only 1 specific (and very secluded) race had access to necromancy and illusion. Pick that race, and you only know 2 schools of magic (nothing else), but the rest of the campaignworld didn't have them, and knew little about them. It was blast fun.

You can make any of those by using the sub class structure. I think you might want to tweak how subclasses work, in that (I hope I am understanding you correctly) you'd like that choice made at second level be more impactful that it feels to you now. Did I catch your drift?

Yes, you can, but I think 5e did a bad job in them. You understand me correctly, but if I had my way, subclasses (in this case for wizard) wouldn't be chosen at level 2 but at level 1, would include a number of opposed schools, and its subclass abilities were much stronger in advancing the specialized school. So yes, but taken much further, and at that point I wonder if you not might just as well say farewell to the wizard and replace it with beguiler etc;

[carrdrivesyou]

Honestly, I would be super hyped about an aura class similar to the marshal or dragon shaman from 3.5 They don't give extra dice and are decent in melee, but passively help by just being around. Also, bring psionics into the fold with a PHB base class. kill the stigma around it, and have it as a separate type of caster, akin to a strange wizard.

[KorvinStarmast]

As for 3.5, the first splat (expanded psionic handbook - XPH) was very good, though totally overpowered in some ways (not ulike how magic was overpowered in that edition); the second splat (complete psionic) was a bit of a mess; some heavily underpowered classes, some nonsencical fluff (psionic divine-like magic with psionic gods), stupidly overpowered combination for the earliest levels... meh. The good thing about XPH was that it had its own esthetic, in art work, materials, monsters, races, it was a really coherent package. But it had all the flaws the rest of the edition had.

Thanks.

Could you elaborate?

For one thing, magic items are a thing. One can fill in the fly feature with a magic item, for example. (Broom of Flying for the win). For another, in Tier 3 somewhat and in Tier 4 for sure, both teleporting and interplanar travel seem to become necessary for the kind of adventure that being at that level stipulates. What I think is wrong is that the limitation on sorcerer spells went a bit too far, not that every class looks the same.

Cause I when I look at casters in 5e, every caster tries to have x) a teleport spell x) a spell to fly with x) a spell to do area damage x) something to counter or dispel magic x) and then some.

and

They all try to cover all bases, which leads to a very similiar spell selection in practice.

And every cleric has some healing spells. So?

I am not sure if you are looking at how people play and what you see in optimized build ideas. This discussion takes me to where wizards are, to me, the arcane caster without peer. Their objective is to get as many different spells into the book as they can so that, for a given adventure, they can help that party. Over their career they'l be faced with different demands. Not all adventures need the same approach

And that's the thing. Helping the party is the whole point, since this game isn't built conceptually as a solo adventure.

I don't follow you here I think.

Your party, if there are three total PCs, pays a price in mission capability if you over specialize, whereas if the party has 6 PCs, a PC's decision to specialize may not have the same impact since there are five, not two, other PCs' to take up the slack/fill the gaps thanks to someone specializing. That's what was behind that point.

But this pigeon holing is exactly my problem when shapeshifting is tied exclusively to the moon druid. I can't play a Beorn, or a warrior decended from lycantrope, or a rogue scoundrel using his shapechanging to avoid traps and deceive others.

I think Beast Barbarian had the potential to remedy some of that. Maybe they didn't go far enough.

I'm tied to this full caster relying on 'magic from nature'. I do think there is room for a 'generalist' caster - but in 5e, I feel almost every caster is a generalist caster, and specializing in something doesn't make you much better than any other random caster with a few spells in that direction.

OK, this may be a matter of taste.

Pick that race, and you only know 2 schools of magic (nothing else), but the rest of the campaignworld didn't have them, and knew little about them. It was blast fun.

Interesting idea, glad the campaign worked out.

Yes, you can, but I think 5e did a bad job in them. You understand me correctly, but if I had my way, subclasses (in this case for wizard) wouldn't be chosen at level 2 but at level 1, would include a number of opposed schools, and its subclass abilities were much stronger in advancing the specialized school.

The game wasn't built for optimizers, I don't think, and for whatever reasons they staggered the "you are a full up round" decision point for the classes - cleric and sorcerer at 1, wizard and druid at 2, Rogue and Fighter and Warlock at 3, but Warlock at 1 with patron ... with an idea that beginning players needed fewer choices in the beginning, not more (while we veterans are happy with more choices earlier ... )

Me, I wish all of the archetypes/sub classes came on line at level 2. For consistency. As to restricting schools: I never liked that. Glad it's not in this edition. A matter of taste, to be sure.

[GooeyChewie]

If I were making 6e, I would have 12 classes, two for each of the six ability scores. Finesse weapons do not default to allowing Dex; instead certain classes/subclasses will allow alternate ability scores to be used.

Strength: Fighter, Barbarian
Fighter for armored, barbarian for armorless. Paladin would go back to being a Fighter subclass. Barbarian would not necessarily need to go 2H.

Dexterity: Rogue, Ranger
Rogue for melee, with an ability to use finesse for Dex. Ranger for ranged combat. Ranger spellcasting comes from a subclass, not the base class.

Constitution: Monk, Warlock
Monks would still be MAD; their subclasses would determine which ability score is their secondary score. Warlocks trade their life-force for magic, offsetting their higher hit points.

Intelligence: Warlord, Wizard
Warlord would focus on fighting smart, using finesse for Int and manipulating the battle through abilities. Wizards wouldn't change much.

Wisdom: Cleric, Druid
Not much change for these class concepts.

Charisma: Bard, Sorcerer
Also not much change, but an OoTS inspired Bard subclass would use finesse for Cha.

[KorvinStarmast]

Charisma: Bard, Sorcerer
Also not much change, but an OoTS inspired Bard subclass would use finesse for Cha.

If you went Bard, Paladin, I'd buy what you are selling here. I like your thematic organization there. If you have warlock and wizard you do not need sorcerer. (Rant curtailed)

[noob]

If I were making 6e, I would have 12 classes, two for each of the six ability scores. Finesse weapons do not default to allowing Dex; instead certain classes/subclasses will allow alternate ability scores to be used.

Strength: Fighter, Barbarian
Fighter for armored, barbarian for armorless. Paladin would go back to being a Fighter subclass. Barbarian would not necessarily need to go 2H.

Dexterity: Rogue, Ranger
Rogue for melee, with an ability to use finesse for Dex. Ranger for ranged combat. Ranger spellcasting comes from a subclass, not the base class.

Constitution: Monk, Warlock
Monks would still be MAD; their subclasses would determine which ability score is their secondary score. Warlocks trade their life-force for magic, offsetting their higher hit points.

Intelligence: Warlord, Wizard
Warlord would focus on fighting smart, using finesse for Int and manipulating the battle through abilities. Wizards wouldn't change much.

Wisdom: Cleric, Druid
Not much change for these class concepts.

Charisma: Bard, Sorcerer
Also not much change, but an OoTS inspired Bard subclass would use finesse for Cha.

I suggest barbarian and ranger and monk becoming fighter subclasses too.
cleric and druid could very well be merged.
sorcerer and wizard could be combined too.

[GooeyChewie]

If you went Bard, Paladin, I'd buy what you are selling here. I like your thematic organization there. If you have warlock and wizard you do not need sorcerer. (Rant curtailed)

Acceptable change. :thumbsup:

I suggest barbarian and ranger and monk becoming fighter subclasses too.
cleric and druid could very well be merged.
sorcerer and wizard could be combined too.

Part of the point of setting the classes up this way is to make Fighter more mechanically distinct. They would not be proficient in Ranged weapons (but they could use Thrown weapons). Basically, it's designed in such a way that if you aren't casting spells you can tell what class a character is by their weapons/armor. Or more accurately, you could ask a newer player who isn't yet comfortable with spellcasting what kind of weapons/armor they'd like to use and determine what class best fits that concept.

[Zevox]

I don't think we'll be seeing a new edition, even a 5.5, anytime soon, personally. Or at least, I hope not, as I certainly don't feel one is in any way necessary, and still want them to add more to 5E. But, if we were to add any class to core, there's no question that my pick would be the Psion. Nothing else is even a blip on my radar there. It's distinct, covers a flavor of fantasy character that no other class does, and is long-running popular addition to past editions. Seems like the obvious pick to me.

[MrStabby]

There's a 3.5 class called the Archivist - not played it yet, but they look quite interesting. The broken part about them is that they're divine spellcasters, who with enough finagling can get access to any spell in the game. The less broken part and the part I find most interesting is a feature called Dark Knowledge, which allows them to make knowledge checks on creatures in order to gain buffs or use special abilities against them for the rest of the encounter. E.g, Tactics allows them to gain a bonus to attack rolls, and Puissance allows them to gain a bonus to saving throws against them, while Dread Secret allows you to dazzle, daze or even stun them for a round.

I feel like the Dark Knowledge bit would work well for what you're thinking of, if it's expanded to have more uses per day, and a wider array of features. The buffs were party wide too, so it really leans in to the flavour of finding out the weak point of the monster. 5e monsters typically aren't really built for having weak points, so this method of generic buffs and status effects would work well for representing the concept of fighting tactically. The Monster Slayer Ranger subclass is an alternative example of loosely what you're looking for, on a half-caster chassis.

Woah... I looked this up. This is... perfect.

From the fluff to the abilities to the skills... all just right. Even the spells - the ability to aquire new non-cleric divine spells from other lists. It is exactly what I want to play. Now I have a name for what is missing.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.



Interestingly enough I homebrewed a class I called an Archivist, but it was much more of a divine Artificer type character that collected and created blessed relics.

[Dienekes]

If I were making 6e, I would have 12 classes, two for each of the six ability scores. Finesse weapons do not default to allowing Dex; instead certain classes/subclasses will allow alternate ability scores to be used.

Strength: Fighter, Barbarian
Fighter for armored, barbarian for armorless. Paladin would go back to being a Fighter subclass. Barbarian would not necessarily need to go 2H.

Dexterity: Rogue, Ranger
Rogue for melee, with an ability to use finesse for Dex. Ranger for ranged combat. Ranger spellcasting comes from a subclass, not the base class.

Constitution: Monk, Warlock
Monks would still be MAD; their subclasses would determine which ability score is their secondary score. Warlocks trade their life-force for magic, offsetting their higher hit points.

Intelligence: Warlord, Wizard
Warlord would focus on fighting smart, using finesse for Int and manipulating the battle through abilities. Wizards wouldn't change much.

Wisdom: Cleric, Druid
Not much change for these class concepts.

Charisma: Bard, Sorcerer
Also not much change, but an OoTS inspired Bard subclass would use finesse for Cha.

Hmm, interesting idea for a format. Though personally, I would change things a bit to make a mundane/magical split

Strength: Fighter, Paladin.
Fighter absorbs Barbarian becomes the heavy hitter. Paladin is like we expect Paladins to be, they also hit things and wear heavy armor, but they get magical boosts.

Dexterity: Rogue, Warmage/Swordsage
Rogue is pretty much unchanged. Warmage I see as your usual Dex Gishes.

Constitution: Ranger, Warlock
I like your take on Warlocks. I'd put Rangers in this position, because wild man who doesn't let up is kind of what Rangers are and gives them the flexibility to go range or not.

Intelligence: Warlord, Wizard
You got this one down.

Wisdom: Monk, Cleric
Cleric and Druids seem far too similar. Wisdom vaguely spiritual magic users and all. Druids can easily be a Cleric subclass. Meanwhile Monks being all ascetic and wise is kinda their shtick.

Charisma: Noble, Bard
Noble/Leader/Aristocrat/Charmer whatever name. I'm thinking a mundane control/buffer class to compare it to the magical bard. Or, make Bards mundane boosters and have Sorcerer being your magical charisma class. Personally, I prefer Noble/Bard because Bard is just a more interesting and unique class than Sorcerer's just a wizard but not.

[Luccan]

I think it would be easier on everyone if the psionics of an edition were packaged with core. Throw it in the DMG as an optional rule if you're worried about players assuming it's default (btw, many or perhaps most 1st party D&D settings have psionics somewhere, it's not just in Dark Sun). If I were reducing the number of classes, I'd argue the Warlock concept doesn't need its own special class. Mechanically, the invocations as ala carte, at-will powers make sense for the Sorcerer if we want to keep them. Much as it pains me to say, Bard doesn't need to be its own class either. Look at it now: Jack-of-all-trades whose subclasses are just about leaning in to one of the things it can do. Other than the full casting progression, it could totally be a Rogue subclass.

Edit: Also, the only reason Artificer doesn't fit some settings is that it gets a bunch of Magipunk stuffed into it. Sand that stuff off (Oh your Battle Smith has a stone golem, not a magic robot) and it's just a magic craftsmen. Perfectly reasonable core class.

[jas61292]

So the interesting thing for me with the question in the thread title is that my answer would be very different depending on which we are talking about: 5.5 or 6.0.

If we are talking a 5.5, then presumably we are working on a base that heavily resembles 5e, and the existing classes would all remain relatively similar. So if I was picking something new to add to core, it would probably be some kind of non-magical support class. That could be a warlord, but I think I would personally love something with a less martial feel, that could compare to a spell caster in social and exploration situations.

However, if we are talking 6.0, we are looking at an entirely new system, and if I had my way, things would be very different than they are now. Specifically, spellcasting classes would be totally torn apart. I think one of the biggest things I would love to change would be to have most casters be more specialized and not have the "do everything" generalist. And simply by forcing the spellcasters to be more specialized, I think it allows the classic non-magical classes to feel more equal without needing to add any new ones. So really, I guess my "new" class for 6.0 would be something like an Enchanter or Beguiler or Necromancer or whatever specialist caster you want. But it would be new because Wizard (and possibly Sorcerer) would be gone, and the new classes draw from its remnants.