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

[Khaalis]

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.)

The problem is how to manage this. Nothing is going to be elegant in a subclass that goes and removes an entire class feature from the subclasses' primary class features. A "spell-less" ranger really needs to be an ALT-Ranger Class Feature option that can be plugged into Ranger for those who want it spell-less. The question is finding what core class features to add to replace spellcasting.

 

[Desdichado]

In the vein of Morrus's "What Feats are missing?" thread, I'd like to get a feel for what subclasses people might like to see.

For instance:

• On Reddit someone wanted to convert the Swiftblade PRC to a Fighter Archetype.
  
• I have been thinking about whether porting over my 3E Duelist / 4E Fencer concept over as a Fighter or possibly rogue subclass, gaining Unarmored Defense, Cutting Words, etc.

- So what concepts and subclasses would you like to see?

- What of those concepts do you think are viable as subclasses or that can be distilled down to a feat?

- Are there any major class archetype from say pathfinder that would require a whole new class with its own subclasses? (For instance my old Duelist could be an ALT fighter with a set of its own subclasses.)


We can use this list as project source material.

I'm with you on this one. One of the most consistently neglected archetypes in all versions of D&D (or, if they provide one, it's underpowered and fairly useless) is some kind of lightly armored swashbuckler archetype. Since most of my favorite movies are swashbuckler movies, this has consistently rankled me.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.)

The problem is how to manage this. Nothing is going to be elegant in a subclass that goes and removes an entire class feature from the subclasses' primary class features.

I totally agree. That's why I think it'd make more sense to start in rogue as the parent class. The scout subclass features could mimic some of the features from ranger. Subclasses that remove and replace parent features...no thanks. That way lies the madness of 2e's Skills and Powers. I've seen that movie and have little desire repeat it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm with you on this one. One of the most consistently neglected archetypes in all versions of D&D (or, if they provide one, it's underpowered and fairly useless) is some kind of lightly armored swashbuckler archetype. Since most of my favorite movies are swashbuckler movies, this has consistently rankled me.

Here's the problem I see with this kind of thinking: part of the very reason you choose a fighter (or other heavy class) is to be the guy upfront taking the punishment and dealing it out. The game needs its tanks to be the best at that. You can, right now, play a swashbuckler dude right out of the book. You can be a bard, a rogue, or even a fighter who is proficient in acrobatics etc. Done.

Will such a character be able to stand toe-to-toe with a tanked up fighter in a 20' square room? No, and he shouldn't. If he can, then he's stepping on the heavy's toes.

Are there other situations that favor the swashbuckler? You bet. If you want to favor swashbuckler types, you just need a campaign that favors those situations over dungeons (or dungeons that feature swashbucklery rooms...whatever that means). If you really want to press the point, a few house rules imposing exhaustion and social penalties (even if just rp) should dispell the D&D trope of fighters living in their heaviest/best armor, IME.

If we start down the path of writing a mass of new bloat for these sorts of reasons, then I just don't see the point of all the bloat. Just play Fate or something where the bloat is irrelevant and the swashbuckler and heavy fighter can play on (relatively) equal-footing out of the box. Skip to the end and save the headache of a giant rules morass.

At least, that's how I see it. YMMV.

 

[Ratskinner]

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

Or just a Rogue with feats like Martial Adept, Mobile, Athlete, Dual Wielder, and Lucky(maybe?). I mean put 'em in whatever order you want and that seems like a good duelist/swashbuckler to me.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I spent some of my first weekend with the PHB making up third level characters. I made up something like thirty different characters and I was totally blown away by the flexibility and depth already there. My first thought on a lot of these is "we already have that".

I do wonder how much of that impression depends on people's need to have the label on the tin (or conversely, to reskin).

 

[Desdichado]

Here's the problem I see with this kind of thinking: part of the very reason you choose a fighter (or other heavy class) is to be the guy upfront taking the punishment and dealing it out. The game needs its tanks to be the best at that. You can, right now, play a swashbuckler dude right out of the book. You can be a bard, a rogue, or even a fighter who is proficient in acrobatics etc. Done.

You can play one, but not effectively. Because the D&D rules favor the stand-in-place in your armor fighters.

Will such a character be able to stand toe-to-toe with a tanked up fighter in a 20' square room? No, and he shouldn't. If he can, then he's stepping on the heavy's toes.

I completely disagree. Your position is that only one type of fighter can be an effective fighter. There's no reason for that to be true.

Are there other situations that favor the swashbuckler? You bet. If you want to favor swashbuckler types, you just need a campaign that favors those situations over dungeons (or dungeons that feature swashbucklery rooms...whatever that means). If you really want to press the point, a few house rules imposing exhaustion and social penalties (even if just rp) should dispell the D&D trope of fighters living in their heaviest/best armor, IME.

I think you're missing the point. Your answer to my point that the swashbuckler trope has been consistently neglected by D&D over the years; either absent, or poorly implemented, is that D&D has a trope of fighters being heavily armored to be successful.

Well, yes. Exactly my point. Thank you for the completely circular discussion.

If we start down the path of writing a mass of new bloat for these sorts of reasons, then I just don't see the point of all the bloat. Just play Fate or something where the bloat is irrelevant and the swashbuckler and heavy fighter can play on (relatively) equal-footing out of the box. Skip to the end and save the headache of a giant rules morass.

There are few things more irritating than pointing out a consistent problem with D&D rules (another one would be lack of good chase rules, but that's neither here nor there) just to have someone tell me that clearly I need to be playing some other game then, because D&D doesn't address my problem.

No kidding. That's why I'm expressing the problem. And the notion that the only solution is "bloat" is simply not true.

At least, that's how I see it. YMMV.

Clearly MMdoesV.

 

[Khaalis]

I totally agree. That's why I think it'd make more sense to start in rogue as the parent class. The scout subclass features could mimic some of the features from ranger. Subclasses that remove and replace parent features...no thanks. That way lies the madness of 2e's Skills and Powers. I've seen that movie and have little desire repeat it.

The problem is then you are playing a rogue with a small selection of "nature" oriented abilities, not a Spell-less Ranger. There are a lot of people who want everything about the Ranger, as it exists, minus spells. They should have that option especially for campaigns where Rangers simple aren't spellcasters. This is nothing new and there have always been 2 camps on rangers when it comes to spells.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/rant on - To all who simply say "dont write bloat, bend your concept to what's in the book":
I'm only going to say this once. I am not going to get into an argument over character concepts and how to meet them or the creative field that is D&D. People have always written additional materials for D&D and always will.

IMHO, no one should be telling others how to play their concepts. If you don't like additional classes, sublcasses, feats, etc. and consider any such material that broadens the choices for players to make the characters they want the way they want them, then simply don't pay attention to the "bloat". Yes the existing material can make many concepts, but not all. The PHB is not the "one mechanic to bind all concepts". Sorry, not even close.

As to the Duelist in particular, a bunch of people have stated (here and other boards) that they want this concept and it IS going to be created one way or another by someone at some point. You can choose to add constructive conversation on how to best to do it or you should simply ignore the topic, not tell people its simply a stupid idea and shouldn't exist because you can find a way that works for You and anything else is "bloat".

Keep in mind "To Each His Own". If bloat doesn't work for you, great for you, but don't go cr@pping in other people's sandboxes.
/rant off

 

[Unadvisedgoose]

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.

Looking at it this way though, any "additional" subclasses or archetypes would also be considered optional, probably even more so than feats and maybe even multi classing... So while I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm a little confused by how creating more subclasses would alleviate the problem of certain existing options being as optional as they are.

 

[shamsael]

If I may widen my wishes beyond what I believe 5E will ever get us...:

- a controller fighter subclass; a subclass that completely disregards the current balance between martial (sub)classes, and provides us with a fighter subclass with 4E levels of ability to affect multiple enemies (bunch them together, whirlwhind them, hurl them away etc). This subclass should not and cannot be balanced against the Champion or Battle Master; the explicit aim is to allow martial non-magical characters a greater level of battlefield control while still not playing in the same league as high level spellcasters. Specifically, this class is not expected to replace or obsolete a Cleric or Wizard in any way, it is only meant for those groups who loved the way martials played in 4E; groups who don't subscribe to the current "high-level fighters are supposed to just whack people just harder than low-level fighters" and "if you don't like being simple, learn to cast spells" philosophies permeating 5E.

A whole new edition and some of us still demand a martial controller?