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

FYI, this is exactly what I mean about being forced into MC to "sorta" make a concept work. In what way does being a Barbarian really apply to being a Duelist/Swashbuckler other than for the mechanics of cherry picking the class to get Unarmored Defense. If the ability is THAT intrinsic to the concept (and yes it really is as described by others), then there should be an option that creates the theme without multiclassing into unrelated classes.

As it has been said, the Fighter class is "almost" right for the concept but not quite. It needs tweaked, either a substitute "alternate" class feature for the core fighter to make a Light Fighter, or a specific subclass or even a full on ALT-Fighter. I still haven't decided which is the best approach.

For the specific thing you are looking for, which is a completely unarmored duelist, yes, it'd be hard to function. Unless you take the defensive duelist feat. Which will eat up your reaction each round, but considering the concept is more about parrying and defending with your blade than it is necessarily being tough like a barbarian, I think that applies as well. Another thing to remember is magic items. Bracers of defense and/or ring of protection would still give this type of fighter a lot of defensive capability, even without armor.

At this point, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just spit-balling ideas. We've already covered that our ideas of a typical duelist/swashbuckler is different in regards to armor, which is perfectly fine, cause people are different.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

To quickly summarize...

Heavy Fighter and Light Fighter fill 2 different design spaces, though they can use the same core class. One of the core ideals of the fighter is having an AC.

Heavy Fighters are in their element when they can be armored to the teeth. Great for dungeon adventures or for DMs that don't care what you wear no matter where you are. If a heavy Fighter is caught without armor, he's screwed with his 10 AC. as it should be he's out of his element.

Light Fighters excel in situations and adventures geared toward scenarios where armor is unacceptable such as many city campaigns, waterbound campaigns, Renaissance based games, etc. Should a Light Fighter really be used as a Dungeon crawl archetype? Probably not. But in his element of no-armor encouraged style games, the Light Fighter HAS to retain the fighter's need for AC.

That is basically why Fighter "as-is" does Not suffice whole cloth as a Light Fighter. At least IMHO.

As mentioned "To Each There Own".
 

The more I think about it, the more I think there is room for a duelist subclass--but as a subclass of rogue, not fighter. The rogue is already built to function with little/no armor, to focus on Dex, to be skill-intensive, and to be more maneuverable. I think it might be a lot easier to tweak the rogue into swashbuckler than the fighter, which was built with heavy armor and the like in mind.
 

Another thing to remember is magic items. Bracers of defense and/or ring of protection would still give this type of fighter a lot of defensive capability, even without armor.
FYI, I have to again point out that this doesn't fly in a lot of games. 5E went very far out of its way to make magic items non-essential this time around because so many people got sick of the crutch. I think a lot of games are going to find magic items being a LOT more rare in their games (as I personally feel it should be), so trying to base a theme around expecting to use them (like in 3X and 4X) isn't going to be an option in 5E for many people.

PS: I'm not really trying to argue either, just showing the flip sides of the coin. What works for some doesn't for others, and vice versa. I don't think it hurts anything to present Options. The existence of a Light Fighter variant of some kind to make that niche of players happy isn't going to hurt anyone who feels it 'unnecessary'. /shrug

Ok, I'm out for a while. Need some sleep.
 

The more I think about it, the more I think there is room for a duelist subclass--but as a subclass of rogue, not fighter. The rogue is already built to function with little/no armor, to focus on Dex, to be skill-intensive, and to be more maneuverable. I think it might be a lot easier to tweak the rogue into swashbuckler than the fighter, which was built with heavy armor and the like in mind.

The problem with this is that many people don't see the Rogue as the correct fit. They're looking for a Light Fighter, not a thief dressed up to look like a fighter. Things like skill monkey, thieve's cant, stealth, sneak attack, etc. just throw off the feel of the archetype of a Duelist or Swashbuckler.

If I may, I direct you to look at the fluff section of my Duelist class as an example or to the movie Rob Roy's Archibald character. THAT is a professional duelist and he is a fighter through and through, not a rogue. JMHO.
 

The problem with this is that many people don't see the Rogue as the correct fit. They're looking for a Light Fighter, not a thief dressed up to look like a fighter. Things like skill monkey, thieve's cant, etc. just throw off the feel of the archetype of a Duelist or Swashbuckler.

I feel you're getting hung-up on labels. It doesn't matter if it's called a rogue or a fighter, what matters are the results.

I agree with you that Thieves' Cant sticks out, and I'd prefer a way to do without. But skill monkey? When was the last time we saw a swashbuckler character who wasn't athletic/acrobatic/silver-tongued? Skill monkey makes perfect sense.

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done as a fighter, just that--to me--rogue is actually a better fit.
 

FYI, I have to again point out that this doesn't fly in a lot of games. 5E went very far out of its way to make magic items non-essential this time around because so many people got sick of the crutch. I think a lot of games are going to find magic items being a LOT more rare in their games (as I personally feel it should be), so trying to base a theme around expecting to use them (like in 3X and 4X) isn't going to be an option in 5E for many people.

PS: I'm not really trying to argue either, just showing the flip sides of the coin. What works for some doesn't for others, and vice versa. I don't think it hurts anything to present Options. The existence of a Light Fighter variant of some kind to make that niche of players happy isn't going to hurt anyone who feels it 'unnecessary'. /shrug

Ok, I'm out for a while. Need some sleep.

I guess my overall point would be this: You're going to have to use optional or additional components to create what you want. Those options already exist, to create your archetype, in the current written rules. I'm not begrudging those that want a new subclass, for the reasons you said. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. All I'm trying to say is that it's possible to actually create with the options already presented, and I think that's pretty cool. If your DM doesn't allow some of those options I kinda wonder why he would allow a home-brewed thing to be utilized, but it ultimately comes down to the campaign he's going to run and the character you want to play. Which is all gravy.
 

Based on what we've seen so far with splatbooks (the Elemental Evil Adventurer's Handbook) I imagine we're going to see more accessories based around themes and adventures rather than classes. Which will make it much, much harder to find a place for some of the more generic subclasses. Elemental Evil will be a great place for an elemental druid or Primordial pact warlock, but it should NOT be the place for something like an enchanter bard.
Having to hunt for content that is not in an obvious location is awkward and should be avoided. That's half of rules bloat.

Barbarian
Path of Twin Fury. Two weapons. This needs to be a thing, because it currently doesn't mesh well with the critical buffing feature and barbarians lack the weapon focus of other martial classes while also being feat starved.
Path of the Fetish. Drawing strength from fallen foes. These might be trophies or the consumption of enemy's hearts.
Path of the Blood Mage. The equivalent of the arcane trickster or eldritch knight, adding some sorcerer to the barbarian.

Bard
College of Manipulator. The bard that fascinates and charms opponents. The enchanter build.
College of Trickery. The illusionist/summoner build, possibly working with shadowstuff to conjure creatures or generate phantasms.
College of Respite. The buffing bard, who makes everyone better, and has spells focused around aiding the party.

Cleric
I don't see the need for many new cleric builds. Most gods seem to be covered, and adding new subclasses/domains just means having to retcon the list of gods in the PHB, which should be avoided.
That said, there are a few small gaps in god portfolios. I think elements might be handy: Fire Domain, Water Domain (with cold), and Earth Domain, since we already have Tempest covered. There's a lot of historical deities tied to the elements, so this makes sense; not all fire gods work as sun/light gods. For example, the lack of a domain appropriate to smiths means Moradin and Reorx are gods of knowledge, which is weird.

Druid
Circle of the Beast. This is pretty obvious and a glaring omission, especially as all the druid art includes an animal companion. Give them an animal companion, the ability to talk to animals, and summon minor animals (even if non-combatants).
Circle of the Elements. Almost as obvious. A druid tied to the four elements. An Avatar if you will.
Circle of the Spirit. The shaman type character that deals with the spirit world, fey, and the like. They might be able to talk to spirits, summon spirits, interact with other planes, etc.

Fighter
Battlemind. When we get psionics, the psion equivalent of the eldritch knight would be cool. And the name works better than "psychic warrior".
I don't think we need many new subclasses at the moment since the fighter is defined by its mechanics: simple or complex. More maneuvers are all that are needed, but finding a place for those would be cool.
It'd be neat to have some more tanking, some mounted combat, and the like.

Monk
Way of the Drunken Boxer. Lots of bobbing and weaving, erratic movement, with tricks like breathing fire or resisting damage. Because it's fun.
Way of the Raised Staff. The monk that relies on monastic weaponry, especially two-handed ones like the quarterstaff, spear, monk's spade, etc. Maybe throw in some improvised weapon bonuses as well, for the Jackie Chan type character that fights with whatever's handy.

Paladin
I don't see the need for many other oaths. We're pretty well covered with paladin archetypes at the moment. Except possibly an "oathbreaker" subclass for paladins that stray but don't go full antipaladin.

Ranger
Trapper. The ranger that is good at making tracks, ambushes, hiding, and the like. Possibly with some skill use, dipping into bard/rogue territory.
Delver. Instead of focusing on the aboveground, this ranger is all about the Underdark and dungeons.
To expand the ranger I'd really like to see more spells that are not spells. Spells they can take that can be flavoured as mundane abilities. Or a subclass ability that lets them burn a spell to recharge an ability, like the paladin's smite.

Rogue
Conman. The Charisma-based rogue that is less about robbery or murder and more about social skills such as deception, trickery, and bluff. They might be able to hand off their sneak attack to an ally and otherwise buff the party without directly making with the stabbity stabbity.
Investigator. Like the above, the subclass that is about assisting and less about the old ultraviolence.

Sorcerer
Fey Bloodline. If any ancestry would convey innate magical powers, it would be faeries
Primal Sorcery. Lots of elemental effects and powers. Works nicely for Dragonlance as well.

Warlock
Draconic Pact. Strike a deal with a dragon and become infused with its essence.
Primordial Pact. Making a deal with the anti-gods. Another dash of elements.

Wizard
We don't need any more wizard schools. Like the cleric they have enough love.
 

I feel you're getting hung-up on labels. It doesn't matter if it's called a rogue or a fighter, what matters are the results.

I agree with you that Thieves' Cant sticks out, and I'd prefer a way to do without. But skill monkey? When was the last time we saw a swashbuckler character who wasn't athletic/acrobatic/silver-tongued? Skill monkey makes perfect sense.

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done as a fighter, just that--to me--rogue is actually a better fit.

Its not so much labels as it is theme of the abilities. While rogue fits for some of the theme there is a lot of it that doesn't. For instance the skill monkey aspect and expertise may fit the Swashbuckler but not so much a duelist or bladesinger.

Honestly the more I think about this the more I really think I need to do a separate alternate fighter class especially as it can support its own full grouping of subclasses.

Class: Light Fighter
* Focus on Light and no armor; DEX based and manipulation of existing fighter framework.

Subclasses:
* Mistdancer: mixing in a touch of magic MC.
* Brawler: A non-monk light unarmed fighter.
* Corsair: light fighter sailor MC rogue properties.
* Duelist: Professional dueler and killer. A harrier and kind of an assassin/warrior.
* Gallant: Fencer, athlete, physical perfectionist, courtly noble warrior - a sword sage.
* Musketeer: Two weapon light fighter with gunslinger MC properties.
* Swashbuckler: Two weapon fighting with weapon / buckler; about panache and wit.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top