• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E New UE Classes

plisnithus8

Adventurer
Besides the Mystic, have there been any other hints as to new pure classes to be released in Unearthed Arcana?

What new classes would you like to see?
Are there classes from previous editions?
What niches could be filled without overlap?

Personally, I would like to see:
- a chronmancer
- a monster-evolve or attack-mimicer
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ath-kethin

Elder Thing
Well we had the artificer redux as well.

The summoner I'd like to see was handled admirably by EN5ider.

So I'm good for the time.
 




QuietBrowser

First Post
The problem with adding new classes is that, really, WoTC seems determined to focus on subclasses first and foremost. That's why the Artificer was originally broached as a Wizard subclass, after all. And, really, unlike in, say, Pathfinder, 5e's subclass system is crunchy enough that it actually does nullify the need for a lot of extra classes.

I mean, honestly, what class concepts are there left that would actually warrant being full-fledged classes?

Gunslinger? Take an Archery focused Fighter, Ranger or Rogue, give them a gun, let them make ammunition with an Int check and access to the raw materials, and you're done. At best, we could get some gunslinging-archetypes for more guns & sorcery campaigns. Heck, I'd actually be kind of interested in a Hexslinger warlock or a Holy Gun paladin.

Summoner? The Conjurer already exists and is focused around being excellent at commanding summoned minions; how would this honestly be any different?

Oracle? This'd be very hard to make different from a "Cleric-dabbling" Sorcerer subclass, ala the mk2 Favored Soul.

Shaman? A Sorcerer that "dabbles" in Druid magic.

The Gish archetype? It's not quite as satisfactory as 4e's Swordmage, personally, but between the Eldritch Knight Fighter, the Bladesinging Wizard and the Stone Sorcerer, it's covered.

Warden? Without 4e's mechanics to really help make it feel unique, ultimately, this is a Druidic version of the Eldritch Knight Fighter.

Investigator? We have this already - it's a Rogue archetype.

Bloodrager? It's a Sorcerer/Barbarian fusion subclass.

I literally can't think of anything that WoTC couldn't jam into the subclass mechanic and make it work, except maybe psionic classes - and odds are likely those'll all end up as subclasses of Mystic.

Don't forget, WoTC took a poll on Prestige Classes and, from what I was told, the response to their return was overwhelmingly negative. It's not hard to imagine that, from that, WoTC may also have concluded that people would rather see ideas fit into the subclass framework first before trying to make them into full-fledged classes.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Besides the Mystic, have there been any other hints as to new pure classes to be released in Unearthed Arcana?
So far, we've seen Mystic (Psionic) and Artificer.

What new classes would you like to see?
In addition to the Artificer (which I'm not crazy about either UA take on, but it's nice to have something), the Shaman (might be OK as a sub-class of Druid or something), and the Warlord.

Are there classes from previous editions?
Not in 5e yet? Yes, hundreds if you include 3e PrCs.

In previous-edition PH1's, not yet in 5e: Warlord (4e), psionics (1e - not technically a class, but still).

In previous-edition PH2, not yet in 5e: Warden(4e), Knight(3.5), Avenger(4e), Beguiler(3.5), Shaman(4e, 3.5 'Dragon Shaman'), Duskblade(3.5), Invoker(4e).

In previous-edition PH3, not yet in 5e: Psion(4e), Battlemind(4e), Ardent(4e), Seeker (4e), Runepriest (4e)

What niches could be filled without overlap?
5e doesn't really have niches in that sense, and already has tons of overlap.
 
Last edited:

Olive

Explorer
What I'd like to see are not necessarily new classes (although they certainly could be which is why I'm posting here) but cultural variant arcane casters - wu jen, sha'ir and that sort of thing. Shamen for divine?
 

Dualazi

First Post
The problem with adding new classes is that, really, WoTC seems determined to focus on subclasses first and foremost.

That’s not really a problem so much as wizards just being obstinate. Nothing within the game framework is actually prohibitive of new classes.

Gunslinger? Take an Archery focused Fighter, Ranger or Rogue, give them a gun, let them make ammunition with an Int check and access to the raw materials, and you're done. At best, we could get some gunslinging-archetypes for more guns & sorcery campaigns. Heck, I'd actually be kind of interested in a Hexslinger warlock or a Holy Gun paladin.

Could work, but you’re also going to either need homebrew stats for the weapon or use the examples in the DMG. Then you’re going to need to clarify which feats/class abilities apply to it. Whether or not this is too much work is a case-by-case basis, but I think it’s part of the underlying desire for new classes; the idea that all that stuff has been checked and evaluated.

Summoner? The Conjurer already exists and is focused around being excellent at commanding summoned minions; how would this honestly be any different?

If the conjurer had anything to do with the fantasy of controlling minions (especially long term) I might, agree, but it doesn’t. Minor Conjuration and Benign Transportation are mundane utility and mobility perks respectively, and Focused Conjuration doesn’t deal with minions specifically. Only the 14th level feature directly contributes to the fantasy of summoning creatures to fight for you.

Oracle? This'd be very hard to make different from a "Cleric-dabbling" Sorcerer subclass, ala the mk2 Favored Soul.

Agreed, especially with the new favored soul, diviner, and your preferred blend of cleric, this one is pretty much covered.

Shaman? A Sorcerer that "dabbles" in Druid magic.

Not going to cut it, doubly so if you preferred the 4e shaman as opposed to the general theme of shamanism. Aside from cantrip scaling you’re going to fall on either side of being either mostly a sorcerer or mostly a druid.

The Gish archetype? It's not quite as satisfactory as 4e's Swordmage, personally, but between the Eldritch Knight Fighter, the Bladesinging Wizard and the Stone Sorcerer, it's covered.

Stone sorcerer is garbage, but the other two work well enough, letting you pick between a magey fighter or a fighter-y mage. They really could recreate the swordmage pretty easily with eldritch-knight specific spells or abilities.

Warden? Without 4e's mechanics to really help make it feel unique, ultimately, this is a Druidic version of the Eldritch Knight Fighter.

We already basically got warden though, between either a nature themed paladin or the new guardian from the ranger UA. This one I agree is pretty unnecessary at present time.

Investigator? We have this already - it's a Rogue archetype.

I…have actually never seen this one called for personally.

Bloodrager? It's a Sorcerer/Barbarian fusion subclass.

And would be terrible. It’s incredibly MAD, needing STR, DEX, CON, and CHA. Oh yeah, bonus points, right under the rage feature it qualifies that you can’t cast spells or even concentrate on them while raging. This multiclass doesn’t function towards the desired archetype in any way. I don’t know if this is full class worthy (I don’t think so), but it’s certainly not doable at present with the current class rules.

I literally can't think of anything that WoTC couldn't jam into the subclass mechanic and make it work, except maybe psionic classes - and odds are likely those'll all end up as subclasses of Mystic.

I think there have been multiple examples given, the most popular and recurring of which of course is the warlord.

Don't forget, WoTC took a poll on Prestige Classes and, from what I was told, the response to their return was overwhelmingly negative. It's not hard to imagine that, from that, WoTC may also have concluded that people would rather see ideas fit into the subclass framework first before trying to make them into full-fledged classes.

Which is unfortunate, since themes like the Bloodrager are really only going to be effectively done through something akin to a prestige class. It also means Wizards will waste time with things like the artificer subclass, which did not live up to expectations at all, and was much better when it had the framework of a full class to expand upon.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
To design a new base class, it should both be a concept large enough to deserve a full-class design effort, different enough so that it can't easily be represented by an existing class, and generic enough so that it shouldn't be siloed under a specific existing class.

The Psion could have been a Monk or Sorcerer/Wizard subclass, but it would have carried too much martial or magic baggage respectively. Psionics would lose their narrative edge and tactical interest if made equivalent to spells. In addition, there have been traditionally multiple psion concepts (for instance, each based on a different key ability among the 6). Making it a base class is a very good idea.

The Artificer could have been a Wizard subclass, but it would make it very strong on spells, and thus leaving much less space for actually creating stuff, which is what defines this character concept. IMHO this is the main reason why they are now trying to design it as its own class, although it's not necessarily what will become their final choice.

I actually believe that it would be even better if the Artificer didn't technically have spells at all, and this could make it suitable for example to being a MacGyver-inspired Rogue's subclass.

But the main questions the designers should ask themselves are: should every Artificer actually be a Wizard (or Rogue, or else)? Is there enough narrative uniqueness, mechanical difference, and gamer's interest to promote this character concept to a fully-fledged class, or will it always be a niche option that only a few players will ever play? Can it ever hold up besides classes that have been around for decades?

It's hard to tell, because for my personal tastes even the Warlock was a long-shot and I would not have missed it, if they had left it out of 5e or demoted it to a subclass. But that was before I saw the 5e version of it, since IMHO the 3e and 4e versions sucked... once the 5e Warlock came out, I was happy it had become a core class! So currently I have zero interest in a Warlord or Warden or Shaman and most of the non-core base classes of previous editions, which I largely hated.

Even tho I am not a fan of Psionics, I totally see how they add a huge theme to the game as a whole, and as such I think they deserve their own system and associated base class. For the Artificer, they still have to win my favour, because it still feels too much like a spellcaster's hobby, but if they pull it right and make it such that it opens up a significant addition to a D&D campaign, then I will endorse its design as a core class.

But Warlord? Warden? Shaman? Those would be difficult to endorse, because they do not add any major theme at all, they always end up being marginal. Perhaps only the Shaman has the potential to enable a major theme, but it would have to be done very well and with some bold design choices, so that it would be clearly different from any other spellcaster.
 

Remove ads

Top