D&D 5E What Subclasses would you like to see?

[Remathilis]

Assassins are pretty archetypal. The magic using Fighters and Rogues are just for the spell casting option being near universal amongst all classes. The Loremaster and Dragon Disciple…..are they actually there in 5E?

Anyway……..yer…scrap em all!!

Loremaster is very close to College of Lore, Dragon disciple is the draconic bloodline, and shadowdancer is Way of Shadow.

 

[SkidAce]

I'm working with a combination (in order) of backgrounds, optional feats at 1st level (as human option) and multiclassing. Before creating new stuff.

So far, its been a fun experiment and most concepts are coming along nicely.

For example, I am working on the Geomancer from the original Mud Sorcerers tomb and Al Qadim. At first glance seems like a simple multiclass. We shall see.

 

[Unadvisedgoose]

Loremaster is very close to College of Lore, Dragon disciple is the draconic bloodline, and shadowdancer is Way of Shadow.

This kind of sums up my feelings regarding what is being posted here. Every time I see the desire for a duelist/swashbuckler all I can think is "How can you not create an absolutely perfect one of these within the system as it exists now?" Fighter, duelist style, using Parry, Riposte, Feinting attack, either from the Battlemaster subclass or the Martial Adept feat (which fighters have more access to feats earlier on). What more do you want, really?

And I feel that most of these overall "archetypes" can be replicated in the same manner. The mechanics to put it together seem all there...

Not to say that there aren't notable exceptions though, such as any Psionics, a true Artificer (that goes beyond just the Transmutation School Wizard), the "pet" Druid, etc.

 

[TwoSix]

This kind of sums up my feelings regarding what is being posted here. Every time I see the desire for a duelist/swashbuckler all I can think is "How can you not create an absolutely perfect one of these within the system as it exists now?" Fighter, duelist style, using Parry, Riposte, Feinting attack, either from the Battlemaster subclass or the Martial Adept feat (which fighters have more access to feats earlier on). What more do you want, really?

Hmm. I'd say trading in unwanted proficiencies for something, first. Maybe lose medium and heavy armor proficiencies, and gain something like "Dashing Defense" (set AC to 10 + Dex + Cha when unarmored). Some special abilities that emphasize and benefit from having a High Dex and a High Cha, which seem like the natural prime stats.

Although, to be honest, I'd be just as happy with a swashbuckler subclass for rogue, instead of fighter.

 

[Unadvisedgoose]

Hmm. I'd say trading in unwanted proficiencies for something, first. Maybe lose medium and heavy armor proficiencies, and gain something like "Dashing Defense" (set AC to 10 + Dex + Cha when unarmored). Some special abilities that emphasize and benefit from having a High Dex and a High Cha, which seem like the natural prime stats.

Although, to be honest, I'd be just as happy with a swashbuckler subclass for rogue, instead of fighter.

I guess I just don't imagine duelists as unarmored like I would a barbarian or even monk. Light or medium seems appropriate to me.

But that's just me. I don't begrudge others for wanting to make specialized content, I just personally feel that most things are covered very well with existing options. Especially a duelist/swashbuckler. But again, that's just me.

 

[TwoSix]

I guess I just don't imagine duelists as unarmored like I would a barbarian or even monk. Light or medium seems appropriate to me.

But that's just me. I don't begrudge others for wanting to make specialized content, I just personally feel that most things are covered very well with existing options. Especially a duelist/swashbuckler. But again, that's just me.

And that's fine. But that's the thing about modular subclasses; the addition of more does nothing to invalidate the presence and viability of the originals. Barring options which cover similar thematic ground but are just plain stronger than the original options, of course. The desire for more material carries some implicit assumptions about the designers maintaining discipline, which has not historically been the case.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, I think there's enough material for a Player's Handbook 2... out in 2016 and NOT before (all these subclasses need some darn good playtesting, as well as any extra Races/Feats/Spells, which should also be included.)

And then they should leave off on non-setting specific splat material FOREVER.

(Though I think there could also be a MM2 and DMG2 (with popular and well-loved optional rules included, once such a thing can be clearly grasped... so not for a number of years yet, but it's worth considering.)

 

[Ratskinner]

Honestly, I'm quite skeptical of the need for additional subclasses or feats. I feel like I can cover most of the suggestions in this thread with very little reskinning. Between background, race, class, and feats, not to mention subclass, spell/maneuver/etc. choice points there really is a lot there already. YMMV, of course.

That said, there is one small thing that I think could kill two birds with one subclass. Rogue is the one core class with no woodsy counterpart or subclass. Additionally, such a woodsy/outdoorsy rogue subclass (I'd call it Scout) could possibly do quite well for fulfilling the "spelless ranger" demand without creating a subclass of ranger that has to "undo" the core-ranger spellcasting. (Which I think would be awkward to write.)

Other than maybe a few setting a specific ideas, I really don't see the need for much else.

 

[Khaalis]

Honestly, I just get the slight uneasy feeling of game bloat when I see this many - and quite a lot of the ideas don’t really seem that ‘archetypal’ to me - more ‘prestige class’-like.

I can respect this attitude. Unfortunately I just don't agree. I have no issue with expanded material. There are a lot of good concepts from over the many many years of the game that can't be mimiced with the existing PHB material. I also don't want to rely on having to force Multiclassing or Feats as the "way to make X concept" since many tables will not use these "Optional" components. JMHO.

 

[Khaalis]

I guess I just don't imagine duelists as unarmored like I would a barbarian or even monk. Light or medium seems appropriate to me.

But that's just me. I don't begrudge others for wanting to make specialized content, I just personally feel that most things are covered very well with existing options. Especially a duelist/swashbuckler. But again, that's just me.

Check out these Pinterest searches. How many of them do you see wearing armor, much less medium or heavy armor? This is pretty much why it needs to allow unarmored.

* http://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=fantasy duelist
* http://www.pinterest.com/search/pin...=fantasy|typed&term_meta[]=swashbuckler|typed

When was the last time you saw a swashbuckler swing by on a chandelier wearing half-plate?