D&D 5E What Would Your Perfect 50th PHB Class List Be?

[Scribe]

What does the assassin base class do that the rogue/assassin or monk/shadow doesn't?

You would have to define what Assassin is before that could be answered.

If its 'steathy and stabby class', nothing.

 

[Greg K]

I made a whole thread about it, if you're really interested.

D&D 5E - Assassins, Alignment, and Archetypes

So, some of y’all may already know this, but the Assassin is one of my very favorite RPG character concepts, and I am very unsatisfied with its representation in 5e. Now, I didn’t expect an Assassin class in the PHB, but when I read the Assassin Rogue archetype... nope! That’s certainly a type...

www.enworld.org

I have no issue with other types of assassins that you listed being avaliable in the game. In my games, however, the Rogue (Assasin) with or without a poisoner's kit or other classes just using their class abilities for killing people is fine (I would even be willing to set up an Assasin background with proficiency in stealth and poisoner's kit).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have no issue with other types of assassins that you listed being avaliable in the game. In my games, however, the Rogue (Assasin) with or without a poisoner's kit or other classes just using their class abilities for killing people is fine (I would even be willing to set up an Assasin background with proficiency in stealth and poisoner's kit).

Sure. A lot of class and subclass archetypes can also be backgrounds, and IMO should be both. In fact I think that most class concepts should be backgrounds as well.

 

[Remathilis]

I made a whole thread about it, if you're really interested.

D&D 5E - Assassins, Alignment, and Archetypes

So, some of y’all may already know this, but the Assassin is one of my very favorite RPG character concepts, and I am very unsatisfied with its representation in 5e. Now, I didn’t expect an Assassin class in the PHB, but when I read the Assassin Rogue archetype... nope! That’s certainly a type...

www.enworld.org

I don't want to necro a 1-year-old thread, but from a casual reading of it, it still doesn't provide a lot of daylight between rogues and shadow monks, especially with new feats like Poisoner in the mix. I'm not saying the assassin subclass is all that good per se, but I don't see as strong a need for base-class support as something like Psionics or even the Warlord might. Another subclass with a subtly different focus (akin to undying/undeath warlocks) might be sufficient to fix the issues with the current assassin.

And "no one" rarely literally means "no one", I'm sure someone somewhere wants an illusionist base class back. But I think it's fair to say assassin doesn't have the same fan-demand as some of the other requested classes do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't want to necro a 1-year-old thread, but from a casual reading of it, it still doesn't provide a lot of daylight between rogues and shadow monks, especially with new feats like Poisoner in the mix. I'm not saying the assassin subclass is all that good per se, but I don't see as strong a need for base-class support as something like Psionics or even the Warlord might. Another subclass with a subtly different focus (akin to undying/undeath warlocks) might be sufficient to fix the issues with the current assassin.

And "no one" rarely literally means "no one", I'm sure someone somewhere wants an illusionist base class back. But I think it's fair to say assassin doesn't have the same fan-demand as some of the other requested classes do.

Okay.

 

[cbwjm]

Talking about the warlord, one of the best renditions of the class I've seen for 5e was someone who just used the idea for optional class abilities from Tasha's which replaced a few of the fighter features with warlord features. Unfortunately, I didn't think to save the post on Reddit and can no longer find it.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Strong Fighter - relies primarily on strength and/or constitution, lots of gear, weapon switching (they have the strencght to carry a variety of weapons).
Agile Fighter - relies primarily on dexterity, mobility, light weapons.
Smart Wizard - relies on intelligence, study, understanding, probably a Vancian caster (with otions for other types of casting like spell points and slots).
Wildcard Wizard - maybe not tied to a stat, gets their power from some other place (pacting, bodily change, dabbling in magic, etc).

 

[Jack Daniel]

I quote both of you, because it is the same basic idea. Why do you want to keep sorcerer and wizard/warlock as subclasses of a parent class? What is your rationale? Because from what I have seen, you either end up with differences so watered down that one of the classes might as well not exist -or worse the result fails to capture both- or you end up with something that is two entirely separate classes that only happen to not be able to multiclass with each other. Even supposing one gets the perfect balance, I'm not so sure how it would look like?

We don't have both a fighter and a warrior class. Or a thief, rogue, and burglar. Or a cleric and a priest.

So it's downright weird that D&D has mages/wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks.

The sorcerer and the warlock aren't strong archetypes. They were added to the game during the 3rd edition for purely mechanical reasons, so that there could be "wizards, but non-Vancian" for players to choose from. (A mechanical chestnut that doesn't even apply to later editions!) The rationalizations for how they work make it worse IMO — "warlocks are wizards, but Faustian" is kind of cool, but then it leaves the wizard a bit ill-defined, since pact magic usually how most magic works in folklore and old literature; and "sorcerers are wizards, but eugenic" is frankly kind of icky in this day and age (even if Harry Potter and Star Wars make "magical ability is just a genetic trait of those lucky enough to come from superior bloodlines" sadly familiar to present-day audiences).

So my solution is to make warlocks and sorcerers psionic sub-classes. Then you can go all out with points rather than slots as the central mechanic, and you can lean into either the Lovecraftian angle or the New Agey witchcraft angle for warlocks; and re-flavor sorcerers as Dr. Strange style "masters of the mystic arts" rather than dragon-blooded arcane Übermenchen.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

"sorcerers are wizards, but eugenic" is frankly kind of icky in this day and age (even if Harry Potter and Star Wars make "magical ability is just a genetic trait of those lucky enough to come from superior bloodlines" sadly familiar to present-day audiences).

Big disagree. You can become a Sorcerer after you are born, by planar warping and similar means. Some people are just born with magical blood. I don't see anything "eugenic" or "problematic" about that. And, this is a fantasy game, where inherited magical power is feasible. It's definitely problematic in the real world to say "some people are genetically superior to other people", but not in a fantasy world where it literally can be a fact of that world.

 

[overgeeked]

We have plenty of “make reasonable predictions of some kind” threads, let’s forget that for a moment.

Instead! Design, in bullet points and broad strokes, what your class section would look like if you controlled that section of the PHB!

Every class ever published for D&D.