D&D 5E What new classes do you think we need?

[Mercule]

I'm surprised no one mentioned "Book of Nine Swords" or "Tome of Magic" classes from 3E.

I actually wasn't a huge fan of the Bo9S. I did like the ToM, though. I don't like Far Realms, per se, in D&D so I use the GOO Warlock patron as a Binder. I could use more vestige-based Invocations, though. I think a Shadow bloodline for Sorcerer or a Shadow patron for Warlock (probably the former) would be good enough for the Shadowcaster. I'd love to see this. The Truenamer, while a staple of fantasy fiction, just didn't seem to really work in D&D. I'm not hot on seeing it retried.

The class I'd really like to see show up with the Mystic is a new Ardent. I like keeping Clerics as servants of gods, but the Ardent was really, really nice for having a "priest" of a philosophy.

Of course, as an Eberron fan, I'd also really like to see an Artificer class that captured the feel/niche of that class. The most recent attempt was completely inappropriate to Eberron, which immediately disqualifies it as an Artificer, regardless of any other qualities.

 

[Delazar]

There's already far too much overlap between existing classes. We don't need a druid while the nature cleric exists. We don't need a paladin while the war priest exists. We don't need a sorcerer while the wizard exists.

Until they clean up the existing conflicts, it would be entirely fair to create a knight or samurai class alongside the fighter and paladin, or a healer class alongside the life cleric.

This! I would actually like if they gave us a UA article with three "new" classes: warrior, expert, spellcaster. Then give us the tools to build all the other classes from there. Something like True20, but with 5e mechanics. Geez, how much I want this!

 

[MechaTarrasque]

If you pretend that the magic isn't magic and is just mundane, a Valor Bard functions reasonably well as a Warlord. A "grant attack" cantrip could be added easily enough. I don't like doing that kind of reskinning though, especially as you wouldn't want dispel magic to dispel warlord buffs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having an enemy cast dispel magic at a PC who isn't glowing, flying, or who doesn't have skin made up of wood or stone seems pretty metagame-y to me. I have a hard time seeing that actually happening in a game: I could cast fireball, but instead I will cast dispel magic at the normal looking fighter who is doing normal fighter things, because ?

 

[GlassJaw]

I'd love to see some work done with fighters. The thing is, "Fighter" as a class is SO broad, that it pretty much covers many archetypes, but, it really shows its flaws if you actually try to apply it. I mean a Knight, for example, should have numerous social skills and probably gain some sort of class based bonuses on social interaction. But, a fighter doesn't get any of that. But, if you say you want to make a knight, everyone tells you to just make a fighter.

Fighter with Cavalier path (from UA) and Noble background?

I agree there is definitely design space for "summoner", which would fit multiple classes.

Along those lines, I've had an idea for a while of paths that could apply to more than one class. It's tricky balance-wise but would open up a lot of customization and make the classes feel more unique. #futureproject


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Guest 6801328]

I suspect I'm opening a can of worms, but I have trouble understanding (and thus sympathizing with) this desire to largely replicate existing abilities, but "without using magic". To me it sounds almost exactly like, "I want an archer, with all the same abilities and damage, but I want to use firearms instead of bows and crossbows." I mean, that's great, but it's not D&D, which takes place in a magical (and non-gunpowder) world. If you really want to use gunpowder, there's a couple paragraphs in the DMG just for you, and if you really want to be magic-less, re-fluff to your heart's content.

That probably sounds harsher than I mean it. I'm really just perplexed why there's this desperate intensity to impose this condition on the game when it is almost entirely an interpretation of existing mechanics, not a change or addition.

I played at a table with a Sorcerer who fluffed his magical ability as being linked to or derived from or manifested by (it really wasn't entirely clear to me, nor did it matter) a deck of cards. Every time he cast a spell or a cantrip he described (in some detail) the card he pulled from his magic deck and flicked through the air. He didn't need a new "Tarot Magician" class or a sub-class; he simply described it the way he wanted to.

 

[Yunru]

It's completely different. For one, as previously noted, there's the mechanical interactions that can't simply be fluffed away. Then there's disconnect like MC Warlords being able to use their Warlordy powers to... cast spells?

It'd be the same as saying "Why not just make an Attack cantrip, there's no need for martial classes."

Even in your example, the spells were still spells, the magic was still magic. Nothing changed but the source.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sometimes I wonder if the right design isn't to add one more layer to the Class/Race/Background stack, which I'll call "Template". Kind of like Background, but with more significant mechanics. For example, "Barbarian" would be a template. You could be a Barbarian Druid, a Barbarian Fighter, Barbarian Rogue, etc.

I haven't thought all the way through this, so I couldn't tell you which archetypes are classes and which are templates, but that's the general idea.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's completely different. For one, as previously noted, there's the mechanical interactions that can't simply be fluffed away. Then there's disconnect like MC Warlords being able to use their Warlordy powers to... cast spells?

If all their powers are instant, without lingering magical auras (e.g. any healing) then they can't be dispelled. It means you couldn't have Concentration spells, but that could be worked around. (E.g., "for one minute you may use your Bonus action to grant...."). I guess Counterspell could be problematic, but there are already lots of hiccups in the game illusion that we deal with, so I had a hard time justifying a whole class on that basis.

In any event, it would be the same thing with the archer/rifleman. You could easily re-fluff, but sure there would be the occasional mechanical hiccup, because archery and firearms aren't exactly the same. (Could a Monk catch a bullet?) But, again, since you're trying to force D&D to be something it really isn't meant to be, that seems like a small price to pay.

It'd be the same as saying "Why not just make an Attack cantrip, there's no need for martial classes."

No, it wouldn't. I mean, I get the analogy, but you're illustrating a subtle point with a hyperbolic exaggeration.

 

[Yunru]

I wouldn't call it hyperbolic, I was just taking it to the logical extreme.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I wouldn't call it hyperbolic, I was just taking it to the logical extreme.

That's what hyperbole means.