D&D 5E New UE Classes

[Cap'n Kobold]

Neither an edge case nor conceptually doing things requiring magic, at all. Rather, D&D has long neglected things that can be done without magic, to provide magic exclusive 'niche protected' coverage of those same things. In genre, for instance, there may be a Priest (and he won't be called a Cleric) but it's unlikely he'll go on the adventure and frequently 'heal' the hero in the middle of a fight - the Priest might heal or even raise a fallen secondary character outside of combat. Or a mundane or even merely mystical (or freakishly pseudo-scientific, like Miracle Max in Princess Bride) healer might provide similar services. In D&D, the former contrary-to-genre in-combat-glowy-'healing' is obligatory, the latter non-combat/less-magical genre-typical healing, underpowered, in the case of not-so-magical, in the name of 'realism.'

I like to think that Miracle Max's cure took an hour to create, and was a chocolate-coated, 500gp diamond.

But no, 'glowy' healing in D&D is not obligatory. If HP aren't necessarily meat, then Cure Wounds can look like nothing more than a helping hand and an encouraging word. Healing Word can be nothing more than a denigrating comment about the target giving up so easily that spurs them back into action. etc.

As to the 'doing stuff without magic' bit, I think that that was an issue from in the earlier editions before 3.x style multiclassing. It was easy to justify a mundane character not doing magical things, but harder to justify why a character who was able to cast spells couldn't also learn to do mundane things as well if they put the same effort in as the character who couldn't cast spells.
In 5th ed, you can represent thing by multiclassing, but that wasn't an option in the early editions.

In genre, you'll also have a hero, supporting-cast leader, or even plucky side-kick, who provides inspiration, advice, re-assurance, or even just a significant look or a need for aid, at a critical moment, and the exhausted troops rally or the battered hero comes from behind and carries the day. D&D only ever touched that trope with the Warlord, and it doesn't require magic - indeed, magic could cheapen it. It's hardly an 'edge case,' either - unlike the pious guy standing behind you making you wounds disappear every six seconds.

Kinda sounds like a Bard as well. Or some versions of cleric. Or someone with White Raven and/or Devoted Spirit maneuvers from the Bo9S. etc.
If we're allowing non-magical healing then we're accepting that magical healing can also mean nothing but a good pep-talk. At which point the difference becomes academic except in those rare cases when antimagic is involved, or whether an ability would go 'Ping!' under detect magic.

I didn't mean to imply non-magical artificer when I said non-casting and 'fantasy engineer.' Just one who can make fantastic devices, but not cast spells in the heat of the moment.

Yep. I'm thinking that if you view infusions as slapping together a temporary device and removed the ability to spell cast normally, that wouldn't be a bad fit. Or you could even require the devices (infusions) to be assembled over a long rest, giving a games-mechanical effect almost similar to normal vancian spell preparation.

'Temporary' (as in only with the Artificer there to keep them running with his 'slots,' in the above idea) would cut it, IMHO, if the campaign wasn't high-magic-item and needing an excuse for all those items anyway.

Yep. If the DM allows magic-item creation, then the assumption is that she will allow Artificers to create items at least as well as most other spellcasters. I personally would have preferred the UA Artificer class' items to be as you say; temporary-with-upkeep similar to that rather than actual once-ever removable items.

 

[Jester David]

I'm actually thinking that a sidebar giving guidelines for non-magical flavouring of class abilities for use in different campaigns of varying magic would be useful for several classes and flavours. A quick list of which spells are suitable for reflavouring as devices or morale effects, and suchlike.
This would cover those edge cases where a concept requires doing things that are normally achieved by spells in a non-magical fashion, such as Warlords and the aforementioned Rogue(?) mundane inventor.

Generally however if you want someone to be able to use medieval tech level to create stuff that would be impressive in this day and age and/or be as good as magic, you tend to have to have them use some form of magic as well, even if that magic isn't casting spells, but more fantasy science like alchemy.

In two different campaigns I've seen a wizard reflavoured as an engineer/ tinkerer, reflavouring fireballs as grenades and the like. Because that's what the player wanted, they either picked spells that were easy to reflavour or worked hard to justify oddball spells.
They didn't need a sidebar to do so or official permission, just a desire to play that type of character.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

In two different campaigns I've seen a wizard reflavoured as an engineer/ tinkerer, reflavouring fireballs as grenades and the like. Because that's what the player wanted, they either picked spells that were easy to reflavour or worked hard to justify oddball spells.
They didn't need a sidebar to do so or official permission, just a desire to play that type of character.

I've done likewise with an artificer-type character, and similar with creating a Warlord character from a Bard.
However, if people are going to insist on official support, then a sidebar with reflavouring guidelines is less wasteful than an entire new class which is an only-slightly-tweaked version of an existing one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But no, 'glowy' healing in D&D is not obligatory. If HP aren't necessarily meat, then Cure Wounds can look like nothing more than a helping hand and an encouraging word. Healing Word can be nothing more than a denigrating comment about the target giving up so easily that spurs them back into action. etc.

Which come from a deity and don't work in anti-magic effects?
No, 5e isn't that amenable to re-skinning. Classes are built from concept first, not from function.

The argument for the Mystic being just a re-skinned Sorcerer or Warlock wrecks on the same rocks, and psionics are at least supernatural, even if they /might/ not be 'magic.'

 

[Jester David]

Which come from a deity and don't work in anti-magic effects?
No, 5e isn't that amenable to re-skinning. Classes are built from concept first, not from function.

If you reskinned the class using the ability, why wouldn't it be possible to make healing word nonmagical and work in an antimagic field?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

What I'd like as new class is a ''dark knight'' class. Different version of the ''fallen paladin'' trope always feel a little off, because even if my archetype says I'm a treacherous blackguard, I'm still able to cast radiant-typed smites, cure, aura of protection etc. Sure I can refluff, but it could be an interesting concept as a class of ''fallen martial character''. Played as a good character, you could play the dark knight in search of redemption, played a evil you could go ''I want to see the world burn''

I could see blackguard class with a reaver archetype (ala fallen ranger more or less a dark version on the hunter of beasts/of shadows from AiME), hexblade (half-warlock, like Mercer's bloodhunter of the profane soul) and dark knight (spell-less fallen paladin with aura of despair and light sneak attack ).

 

[Leatherhead]

Which come from a deity and don't work in anti-magic effects?
No, 5e isn't that amenable to re-skinning. Classes are built from concept first, not from function.

The argument for the Mystic being just a re-skinned Sorcerer or Warlock wrecks on the same rocks, and psionics are at least supernatural, even if they /might/ not be 'magic.'

Nothing in 5e is truly unmagical: Magic is the physics of the world. The fighter swinging their sword multiple times per round could be construed as pure training or it could dramatically described as the result of gathering enough energy from the creatures they have defeated to become a mythic being. However, psionics has a flavor that strongly implies you are rejecting the "normal" reality and replacing it with your own. And as a result "anti-magic" doesn't have lots of hard rules, it shuts down spells, magic items, and summons. But not character abilities or features.

The true problem with the Warlord is the combat engine and action economy. Unfortunately for the warlord fans, all the bits and pieces they want simply don't work in a system where the characters are limited to one reaction and combats last 3-5 rounds.

 

[plisnithus8]

I'd really like to see some off-the-wall classes, at least as UA playtesting.

Perhaps a class that grafts parts of the monsters he slays to himself.
A spellcaster who perfects a single spell.
A seducer

Anyone else like to to see something totally different?
Do you have ideas?

 

[Tony Vargas]

A spellcaster who perfects a single spell.

Wasn't there a PrC or PP/ED that went there? In 5e that could be surprisingly workable. With spells scaling with slot and a mechanism like Sorcery points. Yeah, I could see it being workable. It's a narrow and darn near novel concept, but evocative of the old-school single-spell 1st level magic-user (and the Novel they presumably inspired Watt-Evans to write: With a Single Spell - though, yeah, the protagonist did eventually learn other spells...)

A seducer

The social Pillar is all but pristine 'design space.' A Courtier or Dilitante, perhaps, could cover that and other social-focused concepts. Maybe make the odd fatally cutting remark in combat, or be a fair duelist (or whatever specialized combat skill carries status for the culture).

Nothing in 5e is truly unmagical: Magic is the physics of the world.

That's a nice idea, but 5e does draw a mechanical line between magical and not. Spells are magic, ki is magical - action surge, cs dice, rage, and even psionics, aren't. They may all be fantastic elements of the fantasy world, but dispel magic, for instance, differentiates among them.

And, that is an intentional part of the 5e design. 5e classes are designed concept first, not function first. Or there'd be, like, 3 classes, maybe.

The true problem with the Warlord is the combat engine and action economy. Unfortunately for the warlord fans, all the bits and pieces they want simply don't work in a system where the characters are limited to one reaction and combats last 3-5 rounds.

The warlord worked fine in a tighter and more formalized action economy, and, while the fast combat mandate might somewhat limit some sorts of support contributions, but that doesn't prevent 5e from giving several classes such contributions to make.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Which come from a deity and don't work in anti-magic effects?

If they come from a Cleric, probably. If they come from a Bard, then just the anti-magic: the Bard is pretty much the expert in supernatural inspiration.
Again: Just because they're magical effects, it doesn't mean that they have to be glowy.

If its from a Paladin's Lay on Hands however for example, possibly neither.

No, 5e isn't that amenable to re-skinning. Classes are built from concept first, not from function.

I'm guessing the major sticking point between Warlord and say, Valor Bard in terms of how they actually play would be the resource system?
What sort of resource system do you think that the Warlord should use? Or just keep effects low-powered enough that they're at-will?

The true problem with the Warlord is the combat engine and action economy. Unfortunately for the warlord fans, all the bits and pieces they want simply don't work in a system where the characters are limited to one reaction and combats last 3-5 rounds.

That's only an issue if you actually want to break the combat engine or action economy.
Is there even consensus among Warlord fans about what they think that a Warlord should be able to do that does so?