Gladius Legis
Legend
So, like bringing the 2e Inquisitor kit into 5e? I'm for it.
D&D 5E WotC asks "If you could create one D&D subclass, what would it be and what would it do?
- Thread starter Enevhar Aldarion
- Start date
So, like bringing the 2e Inquisitor kit into 5e? I'm for it.
Gladius Legis
Legend
I'd say we're overdue for an Oath of Liberty Paladin, whose abilities focus on freeing captives from bondage, preventing themselves and allies from having their movement hindered and their mind affected, and has powers that help make an effective army out of the oppressed common folk.
Basically, a 5e-appropriate expansion of the Holy Liberator concept.
Basically, a 5e-appropriate expansion of the Holy Liberator concept.
bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
My most significant attempt at a subclass is a Rogue:Liberator. Many of the skills of the thief work well towards stopping those that would take others captive. I buffed combat a bit, and added some new conditions to Sneak Attack
Fractal Rabbit
Explorer
Basically, U.S. Army Special Forces. I'm down with that. That's a great take on a paladin.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Fun conceptually, but the abilities (or most of them) would have to serve double duty. You don't want to have to wait until the DM gives you captives to free before you can use your special abilities.
One of the Channel Div abilities could be a Knock spell equivalent, and then the other one could be more general purpose.
7th level Aura could be immunity to Paralysis/Hold/etc.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
This is particularly tricky question...well done! 
My first instinct is to say: I WANT A WITCH CLASS! Problem #1: I realize you asked for a subclass and not a class. #2: The Witch class concept, myth, literature, and folklore are too vastly broad to boil down into a single subclass. #3: 5e is overrun with spell casting and casters.
Next thing that comes to mind: I WANT AN ARCANE HALF-CASTER!: Problem #1: In 5e, while 1/3rd casters are self-contained enough to work as a subclass (Take a fighter, add a little magic/few spells. Take a thief, add a little magic/few spells. Simple/single concept.) HALF casters in 5e, the Paladin and Ranger, on the other hand, are broader in concept ensconcing multiple subclasses of their own. They possess their own -albeit limited and largely derivative- spell lists. #2: 5e is overrun with spell casting and casters.
Then I think: PSYCHIC SUBCLASSES FOR EVERYBODY! Problem #1: You asked for ONE subclass. #2: 5e is overrun with spell casting (and I fully expect 5e's Mystics will function, basically and regardless of fluff, as spell casting) and casters (which psychics essentially are, however one wants to view "psychic powers" in the fluff or mechanics of the game).
SOOOO I'm brought to either Fighter, Thief, Ranger, or Barbarian needs another NON-MAGIC-USING SUBCLASS to at least begin to bring some form of parity in the class structure of 5e.
OF those...hmm...SWASHBUCKLER's the first thing that comes to mind. Could be a Rogue subclass. Could be a non-spell using RANGER! Guy to roams the rivers and seas! But #1: It's already done/in there somewhere (how good/bad/over-/under-powered anyone thinks it is is a separate conversation). #2: More broadly on the thought, a non-spell using ranger subclass has already been done, as well (its good/bad/over-/under-powered design is another separate conversation).
Next I think, WHY are ALL of the Barbarian subclasses, except the "core/default" one, magical shamany spirit-using guys?! What else do we have from myth, literature, and folklore for a Barbarian do aside from or in addition to "Raging" and "Spirit/Totem Magic" on which to hang a subclass concept...ummmm....well, there's...hm...a "dex barbarian?" Any clamoring for that?...Anyone? No? hm...
Naturally, turning to the oft under-served Fighters, one's mind immediately goes to the Class that Dare Not Speak Its Name. Then I think, YES! Obviously! #1: It ticks the "from a past edition" box. check. #2: It's not supposed to be a spellcaster. check...?...but if it's NOT a spell caster and gets anything resembling its previous edition features, if 6 or so years of ENworld threads have taught me anything, people are going to start losing their sh-ields. And if it IS a spell caster with superhuman/paranormal capabilities, a large chunk of its fans are going to cry foul and start losing their shields that it's not "right" or "enough" like the class that dare not speak its name they want....So, really, this is a lose-lose for the designers and the players...let's keep going.
So I end up back at the thief and go to, give us a useful and flavorful ACROBAT! #1. It has pedigree gravitas from the 80's cartoon and (even before the publication of) 1e's Unearthed Arcana. check. #2. Separate and apart from gravitas, it gets "nostalgia points" because its not been seen as an official thing SINCE 1e (unless maybe it in one of 2e's "kit" books? idk). check check. #3: NOT a spellcaster! check.
Is it the one subclass I desperately WANT? No. It is a class concept I don't already have homebrewed and like/use just fine? No. Is it the ultimate idea of something I would want to add to D&D if I called the shots? Almost certainly not.
But does it satisfactorily answer the thread question of, "What Subclass would I add to D&D if I could?" Yes.
My first instinct is to say: I WANT A WITCH CLASS! Problem #1: I realize you asked for a subclass and not a class. #2: The Witch class concept, myth, literature, and folklore are too vastly broad to boil down into a single subclass. #3: 5e is overrun with spell casting and casters.
Next thing that comes to mind: I WANT AN ARCANE HALF-CASTER!: Problem #1: In 5e, while 1/3rd casters are self-contained enough to work as a subclass (Take a fighter, add a little magic/few spells. Take a thief, add a little magic/few spells. Simple/single concept.) HALF casters in 5e, the Paladin and Ranger, on the other hand, are broader in concept ensconcing multiple subclasses of their own. They possess their own -albeit limited and largely derivative- spell lists. #2: 5e is overrun with spell casting and casters.
Then I think: PSYCHIC SUBCLASSES FOR EVERYBODY! Problem #1: You asked for ONE subclass. #2: 5e is overrun with spell casting (and I fully expect 5e's Mystics will function, basically and regardless of fluff, as spell casting) and casters (which psychics essentially are, however one wants to view "psychic powers" in the fluff or mechanics of the game).
SOOOO I'm brought to either Fighter, Thief, Ranger, or Barbarian needs another NON-MAGIC-USING SUBCLASS to at least begin to bring some form of parity in the class structure of 5e.
OF those...hmm...SWASHBUCKLER's the first thing that comes to mind. Could be a Rogue subclass. Could be a non-spell using RANGER! Guy to roams the rivers and seas! But #1: It's already done/in there somewhere (how good/bad/over-/under-powered anyone thinks it is is a separate conversation). #2: More broadly on the thought, a non-spell using ranger subclass has already been done, as well (its good/bad/over-/under-powered design is another separate conversation).
Next I think, WHY are ALL of the Barbarian subclasses, except the "core/default" one, magical shamany spirit-using guys?! What else do we have from myth, literature, and folklore for a Barbarian do aside from or in addition to "Raging" and "Spirit/Totem Magic" on which to hang a subclass concept...ummmm....well, there's...hm...a "dex barbarian?" Any clamoring for that?...Anyone? No? hm...
Naturally, turning to the oft under-served Fighters, one's mind immediately goes to the Class that Dare Not Speak Its Name. Then I think, YES! Obviously! #1: It ticks the "from a past edition" box. check. #2: It's not supposed to be a spellcaster. check...?...but if it's NOT a spell caster and gets anything resembling its previous edition features, if 6 or so years of ENworld threads have taught me anything, people are going to start losing their sh-ields. And if it IS a spell caster with superhuman/paranormal capabilities, a large chunk of its fans are going to cry foul and start losing their shields that it's not "right" or "enough" like the class that dare not speak its name they want....So, really, this is a lose-lose for the designers and the players...let's keep going.
So I end up back at the thief and go to, give us a useful and flavorful ACROBAT! #1. It has pedigree gravitas from the 80's cartoon and (even before the publication of) 1e's Unearthed Arcana. check. #2. Separate and apart from gravitas, it gets "nostalgia points" because its not been seen as an official thing SINCE 1e (unless maybe it in one of 2e's "kit" books? idk). check check. #3: NOT a spellcaster! check.
Is it the one subclass I desperately WANT? No. It is a class concept I don't already have homebrewed and like/use just fine? No. Is it the ultimate idea of something I would want to add to D&D if I called the shots? Almost certainly not.
But does it satisfactorily answer the thread question of, "What Subclass would I add to D&D if I could?" Yes.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
It occurs to me, possibly and on a separate note entirely, that two of my comments might actually be able to serve each other.
Given what I said about the structure of half-casters in 5e...and the overwhelming -it seems or at least very vocal- desire to get it included by its fans (or at least apathy from its once rabid detractors), that THE WARLORD could be made in the model of the Paladin/Ranger, on a half-caster, limited spell list, spells directed mostly toward the battlefield framework. Give leadership/inspirational auras and stuff...it could, conceivably, (since 5e dropped the ball on the stupifyingly obvious use of the Bard in such a role) be an Arcane Half-caster. When people start complainign abotu targets being forced to do stuff, that's some charm magic aura effect going on. When people complain about "shout healing", well, that's going to need to involve some cleric magic stuff...or fluff it into some "dispelling exhaustion" style aura? Dunno. But it's there. The concept is in there. Subclasses more offensive, more controly/psychicy, more defensive/cleric-y (might be very similar looking/sounding to paladins). That can be worked out. But the CONCEPT is solid. It's large enough to contain its own subclasses. Big enough to "be its own class" (another commonly heard complaint from its fans).
I, personally, think it is just as well served as a Fighter subclass. But I'm not a fan/don't really care about it.
I can see this half-caster direction working. It's doable.
Someone get to work on that for folks. Great. 'Kay. Thanks.
Given what I said about the structure of half-casters in 5e...and the overwhelming -it seems or at least very vocal- desire to get it included by its fans (or at least apathy from its once rabid detractors), that THE WARLORD could be made in the model of the Paladin/Ranger, on a half-caster, limited spell list, spells directed mostly toward the battlefield framework. Give leadership/inspirational auras and stuff...it could, conceivably, (since 5e dropped the ball on the stupifyingly obvious use of the Bard in such a role) be an Arcane Half-caster. When people start complainign abotu targets being forced to do stuff, that's some charm magic aura effect going on. When people complain about "shout healing", well, that's going to need to involve some cleric magic stuff...or fluff it into some "dispelling exhaustion" style aura? Dunno. But it's there. The concept is in there. Subclasses more offensive, more controly/psychicy, more defensive/cleric-y (might be very similar looking/sounding to paladins). That can be worked out. But the CONCEPT is solid. It's large enough to contain its own subclasses. Big enough to "be its own class" (another commonly heard complaint from its fans).
I, personally, think it is just as well served as a Fighter subclass. But I'm not a fan/don't really care about it.
I can see this half-caster direction working. It's doable.
Someone get to work on that for folks. Great. 'Kay. Thanks.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
How about a Bear-themed Barbarian based on wrestling/grappling?
