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

[Aldarc]

Sure, to a degree. But I feel at minimum it should be at least established at the base class level what the source of their magic is. Is it learned, innate, what? Are they fluff wise just fighty wizards? Fighty sorcerers? Something else?

I suspect that it's something between bard and wizard or even the eldritch knight, where it's learned but not involving spellbooks or rituals. (We don't need another Charisma class.)

 

[jmartkdr2]

When talking about what classes should exist, it also matters are we talking about potentially adding things to the game as it currently exists, or what classes should exist in the next bigger update (The anniversary update?) In the latter case some of the issues of duplication do not need to exist. For example, if it is felt that there should be a dedicated gish class, then they simply can not have Eldritch Knight subclass at all and have a separate gish class instead.

Personally I feel that class design starts to be bit of a mess at this point, as design paradigms have shifted, so I'd rather look at this in the context of clean slate reboot (still assuming the basic mechanics remain roughly the same and compatible of course.) In such context the role of classes as whole can be reassessed. Some can be merged or removed, new ones can be added.

I am not necessarily opposed of dedicated gish class in such a context, though I feel it should have more thematic focus going for it than a generic multiclass build as one class.

For generic gish: I'd actually start with Hexblade as a base flavor, then expand the ways you connect with it, adding in battlesmith sans puppy and bladesinger and maybe swords bard.

But the underlying story is "you're someone with a magical weapon and that's how you do adventuring stuff." (assuming, for the sake of argument that such a thing is necessary)

 

[jmartkdr2]

Sure. But you need to choose some core theme. And whilst I like class themes to be relatively broad, "can fight and do magic" is still way too vague; it needs to be more focused than that.

The counter argument is that "can fight" is plenty, but adding to that makes it insufficient.

Gishy concepts that speak to me are Withcer, Death Knight from WoW and Dark Knight from FFXIVIV. Common theme to all is that they're edgy and dark and in the case of first two somehow altered by dark magics for a personal cost. This is decently compelling, but also already pretty much the warlock, hexblade in particular.

Hexblade should probably not be a warlock if a gish class exists.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The counter argument is that "can fight" is plenty, but adding to that makes it insufficient.

Hexblade should probably not be a warlock if a gish class exists.

I say building around a magic weapon is a bad idea for anything other than a warlock, I say go full witcher make them artificially engineered people made to fight.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The counter argument is that "can fight" is plenty, but adding to that makes it insufficient.

Well, 'can fight' is divided between several classes depending on how you fight. Also, I feel that in a game that already differentiates 'can do magic' into several classes depending on how and why they do magic, the how and why should be answered.

Hexblade should probably not be a warlock if a gish class exists.

Definitely. And that's why I feel that potential new classes make more sense in a clean slate reboot, where you can holistically asses what each class is about and what should they do.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'd say my understanding of what defines a Swordmage at their core would be 'combines and synergises both magic and martial ability into a single battle style to a degree beyond someone else who merely 'uses' both' rather than anything about their origins.

 

[Parmandur]

So long as the weapon is infused, that's RAW anyway.

Well, there you go.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Well, 'can fight' is divided between several classes depending on how you fight. Also, I feel that in a game that already differentiates 'can do magic' into several classes depending on how and why they do magic, the how and why should be answered.

But "can fight" is all fighters have in common. There's subsets of that, but there's nothing else to the Fighter class. But lookig at the others: "can fight by getting angry" and "can fight with fists because magic" and "can fight with holy magic" and "can fight and do woodsy stuff" are the other fighty options - why does "can fight with arcane magic" not pass the test?

Definitely. And that's why I feel that potential new classes make more sense in a clean slate reboot, where you can holistically asses what each class is about and what should they do.

Thinking a bit more I could argue for two gish classes (basically hexblade and swordmage). But that way could lead to bloat, so I'd rather pick one and use subclasses to distinguish.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I say building around a magic weapon is a bad idea for anything other than a warlock, I say go full witcher make them artificially engineered people made to fight.

Whatever. I don't agree that new classes need to hit a higher standard of narrative specificity than existing ones.

 

[Parmandur]

But "can fight" is all fighters have in common. There's subsets of that, but there's nothing else to the Fighter class. But lookig at the others: "can fight by getting angry" and "can fight with fists because magic" and "can fight with holy magic" and "can fight and do woodsy stuff" are the other fighty options - why does "can fight with arcane magic" not pass the test?

Thinking a bit more I could argue for two gish classes (basically hexblade and swordmage). But that way could lead to bloat, so I'd rather pick one and use subclasses to distinguish.

Because Arcane Magic isn't really a rules concept in 5E. Slap a few level appropriate spells of the right flavor in a subclass spellist for a Paladin, insto presto, it "can fight with arcane magic." And again, the Artificer is a martial half-caster who fights with "arcane magic" as far as that goes. What distinguishes this concept from those existing "fights with magic" Classes thst can't be reduced to a homrbrew Spell...?