D&D (2024) New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?

[Paul Farquhar]

a monk is more than a fighter without armour.

Sometimes they forget their weapon too?

 

[Aldarc]

I would remove book pact stuff from warlock and give wizard more options to be a creepy occultist messing with forbidden spells.

I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.

 

[Minigiant]

I would merge classes and add subclasses, moving some stuff from core class to subclass. Specifically, Barbarian is split between an "berserker" fighter subclass and "totem warrior" ranger subclass; sorcerer and warlock are merged; druid goes to nature cleric; and artificer and bard are folded into rogue (sneak attack becomes a subclass ability). Oh, and monk is axed.

Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.

You obviously missed the bit where I said "move some core class features into subclasses".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.

Yep, that totally was my point...

Wizard is so broad, that it is thematically somewhat weak. But they're the book guy. So let's focus on that. Wizard subclasses are incredibly meh. I want them to actually mean something. To me it is thematically confused if we have two separate classes whose thing is having a magical book.

My merging of sorcerer with warlock would aim to broaden the warlock too. The idea would be that we would have two relatively broad arcane casters, that would still feel mechanically and thematically distinct. Wizard, the intellectual caster who studies books and rituals, represented by being able to collect spells in their book. Warlock, the caster who possesses, or is imbued with, innate magical power represented by fast charging magic and always on magical effects.

 

[Aldarc]

Yep, that totally was my point...

Wizard is so broad, that it is thematically somewhat weak. But they're the book guy. So let's focus on that. Wizard subclasses are incredibly meh. I want them to actually mean something. To me it is thematically confused if we have two separate classes whose thing is having a magical book.

My merging of sorcerer with warlock would aim to broaden the warlock too. The idea would be that we would have two relatively broad arcane casters, that would still feel mechanically and thematically distinct. Wizard, the intellectual caster who studies books and rituals, represented by being able to collect spells in their book. Warlock, the caster who possesses, or is imbued with, innate magical power represented by fast charging magic and always on magical effects.

I am all for having wizards be bookish scholars. Where I take umbrage is when that is used to justify wizards having all the magical toys. If anything, I would focus/narrow wizards further down in terms of their spell access, though I doubt that would be popular. When devising their four spell lists for PF2, there was a lot of internal pushback within Paizo any time one of the designers proposed moving a wizard spell from the arcane spell list to a more thematically appropriate one.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Wizards write the game, so they are obviously going to give themselves the best toys.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I voted, No, and some classes could be combined.

We have already removed Barbarians, Sorcerers, and Warlocks and merged them into Fighters, Wizards, and Clerics as subclasses. Works for us.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.

I dont think so, no. We talking of a 1 minute effect per short rest?

But I'd go for a refluffed Reckless attack to represent Rage.

Berserker (Fighter)

3: Rage
You can throw aside all concern for defense to attack with fierce desperation. When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly. Doing so gives you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using Strength during this turn and you can add your Constitution modifier to the damage roll, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.

3: Great Might
You have advantage on STR check. When you grapple a creature, it is also restrained.

7: Berserker's Vitality
When you use Rage, you also gain temporary hit points equal to your 1d8+ Constitution modifier (minimum of 1).

10: Mindless Rage
You can't be charmed or frightened until the start of your next turn if you use Rage. If you are charmed or frightened when you enter you use Rage, the effect is suspended for the duration of the rage.

15: Frenzy
If you take the Attack action on your turn and have advantage on an attack roll against one of the targets, you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target, as part of the same action. You can do so no more than once per turn.

18: Strength Before Death
If you take damage that reduces you to 0 hit points and doesn't kill you outright, you can use your reaction to delay falling unconscious, and you can immediately take an extra turn, interrupting the current turn. While you have 0 hit points during that extra turn, taking damage causes death saving throw failures as normal, and three death saving throw failures can still kill you. When the extra turn ends, you fall unconscious if you still have 0 hit points.

Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.

 

[Seramus]

I'm pretty happy with 1 new class per setting book.