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

[Parmandur]

I think the issue is, for me at least, that you also have all of the other artificer baggage. I don't want a magical tinkerer, a I want a magical warrior. The artificer may be able to do well in combat, but it still isn't a warrior-mage, they're an artificer, someone with plenty of skills and tools and such that don't really fit a warrior-mage type of class.

So refluff it, and it's mechanically a martial half-caster who does cool stuff with a weapon.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It's not so much "justifying" as I can't envision the proposal as laid out being distinct from existing options (all of @Minigiant and @AcererakTriple6 suggestions being doable as is, at any rate).

Are they?

Can you build a Witcher in 5e's current class system. Eragon? The Knights Radiant (thematically, they're paladins, but ability-wise, almost all of them are Arcane Gishes)? Isaac and Hector from Castlevania (they cover their weapons in unholy fire that transforms the people they kill with those weapons into demons/undead monsters under their control)? Zuko from the last Airbender (a master of dual wielding swords that makes his attacks even better using Firebending)?

Can you truly build any of those without multiclassing so much that you no longer have a functional character?

I'm not saying that an "Arcane Warrior" class has to be able to make all of those different types of characters playable . . . but I am saying that there are character options in other fantasy settings that don't currently have a good way of translating them to D&D 5e.

If there were an Arcane Warrior class, and it were at least as open up to different fighting styles as the Paladin is, you could play characters similar to those concepts. A dual-wielding pyromancy-focused Arcane Warrior that has the Noble Background and a class feature that lets them heat up their weapons with magical fire would be a satisfying way to play a Zuko-like character in 5e. A subclass in the Arcane Warrior class that focuses on "dark magic", like Necromancy and communing with Demons could be similar in concept to a Forgemaster and fulfill the playstyle of "I stab people with flaming weapons that transform their corpses into horrible monsters when they die". An Arcane Warrior that uses a throwing hammer and stores lightning spells in their weapon could evoke the feeling of being a character like Thor in ways that the current options cannot (Storm Herald Barbarian? Tempest Cleric? Paladin?). A subclass inspired by the Swordmage that casts teleporation spells in order to lock down enemies and protect their allies could also be included.

Do you see any way that those could be played in 5e without having to take several feats, multiclassing with bad class-combinations, and being held back in progress when compared to the rest of the party?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It wouldn't be pointless if there were consequences for breaking the pact, like with the paladin. But, sadly, 5e didn't include such a thing.

Absolutely. Part of the (as I said, IMO fear-driven) avoidance of heavy thematics on classes--leaning heavily into "as generic as can be managed"--is that they've made a lot of the archetypes toothless. The Playtest Warlock was a genuinely somewhat creepy person, actually giving up "minor" aspects of themselves in order to gain greater power. But that got deleted with extreme prejudice when the feedback wasn't overwhelmingly positive.

If they'd actually kept the intended fluff of Sorcerer--a being with two souls, always struggling at least a little bit against that pull--and the Warlock--a person continually sacrificing little bits and pieces of who they are, pieces they won't get back if they break their contract--then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The two would be so clearly distinct it wouldn't be possible to conflate them. But 5e was the edition of taking as few chances as possible, and it looked potentially risky to include actual flavor in these. So they watered them down as much as possible, because surely no one can complain if they're inoffensively generic, right? Right?

Sure, yes, it might be fine. I'm not making the argument that you think I'm making.

I'm not fixated on one specific proposal. I commented on it, said I didn't want it and the class revolving around it in my game. I feel like I'm being held to accounted because you may have extrapolated that I was dismissing the whole notion of a swordmage class as over-powered. Have at it. Make your class. It won't bother me. If you come up with something good, I might use it.

Can we be friends now? I really don't understand what this is all about.

Alright. It definitely had sounded like you were speaking in much broader terms before. If your only intent was to say "hey, that idea sounds...not great" then I may even agree with you. (Haven't seen anything about the Assassin stuff so I can't comment on that.) My apologies for taking something further than you intended.

 

[Minigiant]

@Irlo @Parmandur

If you were tasked to create a Arcane Half Caster, how would you do it? Suppose the High Elves and the Human Magocracy City State both had magic knights to defend against the Roaming Forces of Evil. Besides All weapons, Light and Medium Armor, and half casting up to 5th level spells... what else would you give it?

What would its Magic Spell Sink like Divine Smite or Primeval Awareness?
What else would you give it?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So refluff it, and it's mechanically a martial half-caster who does cool stuff with a weapon.

How would you refluff a Steel Defender in a way that would fit a generic Arcane Warrior-themed character? Because having a Steel Defender is kind of the main part of being a Battle Smith, and it does not at all fit the general theme of an Arcane Warrior/Swordmage/whatever-you-call-it.

Oh, and the whole "you can only cast spells when you have tools on hand", and all of the features that go into increasing your usage of tools and creating magic items. An "Arcane Warrior" as a general concept, does not include "magical tinker". You cannot reflavor "you are an expert with tools and cast spells/create magic items with them" in a reasonable manner.

Also, the Artificer is not a "half-martial, half-caster" class. Paladins and Rangers are. Artificers are "half-casters", but are more half-rogue than half-fighter. They don't get fighting styles, heavy armor, a d10 hit die, or Extra Attack, and instead get spell slots at level 1 and cantrips.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the issue is, for me at least, that you also have all of the other artificer baggage. I don't want a magical tinkerer, a I want a magical warrior. The artificer may be able to do well in combat, but it still isn't a warrior-mage, they're an artificer, someone with plenty of skills and tools and such that don't really fit a warrior-mage type of class.

This, also. The Artificer is a really good magical maker because it’s class features are all bent toward that purpose.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And that's all I'm saying.

It’s not significantly less work than just making a damn class, and it still wouldn’t work as well as a purpose built class.

 

[beancounter]

I would love for WoTC to bring back the Illusionist as it's own separate class, and a "psionicist" with it's own mechanic (not just spell like effects) - because without it's own mechanics, it would essentially be a sorcerer.

 

[cbwjm]

So refluff it, and it's mechanically a martial half-caster who does cool stuff with a weapon.

You end up with a lot of mechanics and flavour for the artificer though. Why is this warrior-mage amazing with every tool they learn, for instance. Magical tinkering, the right tool for the job, you can attune to more magical items for some reason... A refluff just doesn't quite cut it for the story. I'm generally fine with refluffing a few things, but the higher in level you go as an artificer, the less like a warrior-mage you feel.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So refluff it, and it's mechanically a martial half-caster who does cool stuff with a weapon.

Refluff it how?

This is why I only post +threads about new classes and the like. If “refluff it” was sufficient…the thread wouldn’t have been posted, and none of us would be trying to propose or build a swordmage class. Obviously.

A subclass inspired by the Swordmage that casts teleporation spells in order to lock down enemies and protect their allies could also be included.

Yeah I’ve been tinkering with that as either a spell (pick target, they’re marked, disad on attacks against anyone but you, you have advantage on Concentration checks when they damage you, and if they attack anyone but you or end their turn more than 10ft from you, you can teleport and attack them as a reaction.) or a class feature that is part of your protective aegis.